Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Gregory Koukl :: Townhall.com Columnist
Christianity Is No “Leap of Faith”
by Gregory Koukl
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The spate of atheists on the bestsellers list dismiss Christianity as irrational. They exude a palpable condescension. But what they ignore or are unaware of is that some of the most significant thinkers in western civilization have been Christians. Stringent rationality and Christianity have found harmony in the minds of some of the most lettered people in our history books.

I noticed something stunning a few years back while paging through Frederick Coppleston’s landmark work, A History of Philosophy, for a class. Virtually every major thinker in the history of western civilization since Aristotle was a deeply committed Christian theist.

The list is impressive: Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, John Duns Scotus, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz. It isn’t until the Enlightenment that God and the Bible are not a standard part of the philosophic equation.

For 18 centuries, those who thought deeply and carefully about reality did so with the conviction that God was real, that Jesus was His messiah, and the Gospel was the power of God to change lives.

Let me tell you why this discovery was so important to me. As you may know, I used to think I was too smart to be a Christian. As an Honors College student in pre-law at Michigan State University, I thought Jesus was for socially unacceptable fools who needed someone to do their thinking for them.

So when I was drawn into the Kingdom, it was an epiphany of sorts to realize how wrong I was. Early on I discovered Francis Schaeffer and his seminal trilogy—The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Then there was C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, J.P. Moreland, and a host of others since.

These luminous minds convinced me that Christianity is worth thinking about. It’s a phrase I use often. I open my talks at radically liberal schools like Cal Berkeley, UC San Diego, UCLA, and Ohio State with those words.

It’s become almost synonymous with STR. In fact, I frequently use both phrases together: “Stand to Reason—Christianity worth thinking about.”

Even with the popularity of the so-called “new atheists” – Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins— it’s clear to me that it’s no leap of faith to believe in God. In fact, the more we learn about science, the more credible Christianity becomes. Recently the number one philosophical atheist in the world, Antony Flew, did a dramatic about-face and embraced theism—against his will, as it were—on the strength of the scientific evidence for a designer.

Believing in leprechauns is a leap of faith. Believing in God is like believing in atoms. You follow the evidence of what you can see to conclude the existence of something you cannot see. The process is exactly the same. The effect needs a cause adequate to explain it.

There is nothing unreasonable about the idea of a personal God creating the material universe. A Big Bang needs a “big Banger,” it seems to me. A complex set of instructions (as in DNA) needs an author. A blueprint requires an engineer. A moral law needs a moral law giver. This is not a leap. This is a step of intelligent reflection.

It’s also not a leap to believe in the Jesus of the Gospels. Eminent historian Will Durant, author of the 11 volume set, The Story of Civilization, after a careful assessment of all the evidence, concluded:

No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

All views and religions give you a picture of the world. That’s what a worldview is. The more I read, the more I study, the more I thoughtfully reflect, though, the more I’m convinced that Jesus doesn’t just give us a view of the world. He gives us a view of reality. When you follow Him, you’re not wishing on a star, you’re living in the real world.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Gregory Koukl is founder and president of Stand to Reason, an organization devoted to a thoughtful and engaging defense of classical Christianity in the public square. He is also a radio talk show host and author of Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

Be the first to read Gregory Koukl's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

You have got to be kidding!
Fallacy #1: Lot's of smart people were xians.

So what? Doesn't make it so.

Fallacy #2: They (and I) believe strongly. The strength of our belief means it must be true.

Not unless there's evidence.

Fallacy #3: Inducing the truth of proposition from the truth of an unrelated proposition.

Yes, it's true "You follow the evidence of what you can see to conclude the existence of something you cannot see." But that doesn't prove anything about your god.

Fallacy #4: Everything needs a designer.

Ever hear of "emergent behavior"? And who designed the designer?

Fallacy #3: (again)

Koukl writes: "There is nothing unreasonable about the idea of a personal God creating the material universe." True, but the Designer Argument (see Fallacy #4) doesn't make it so.

Fallacy #5: Proof by Personal Incredulity

Koukl quotes: "No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them ..."

That is, because it is incredible, the only explanation is god. I thought it was Hank.

Fallacy #6: It must be true because it gives me comfort.

That last paragraph of his is a hoot!

Excellent article
No matter what level of education, or lack there of, and whatever degree of morals or immorality one grows or falls into, Jesus Christ makes the difference and makes one whole.

-------
quote:
So when I was drawn into the Kingdom, it was an epiphany of sorts to realize how wrong I was.
-----------

Amazing Grace was what done it for me, and not the song, the receiving.

Off the point
All human beings believe in some form of superior being that controls their fate. It is an essential by-product of the same hardwiring that aided our survival as early humans; it is a universal trait that has a genetic explanation for for abilities that enhanced survival and reproductive success. Our need to develop agent detection, or separate beings that might do us harm, the ability to come up with narratives (causal reasoning)for natural events and the ability to recognize that there are others who have minds of their own (also called social cognition) are characteristics that humans needed for their own safety, and religion was a side effect of those evolved abilities.

This columnist is citing western thinkers, who were part of the Christian tradition (I'm not sure how he can call Aristotle a Christian, however). I noticed that Confucious, for example is missing, as is Siddartha Gautama and other great thinkers from the East. This western-centric view is narrow and self-serving.


amen
even more importantly to me is that i have seen God's hand in my life in very specific ways from very specific prayer.

He lives.

Wrong
Touj. claims: "All human beings believe in some form of superior being that controls their fate."

Here's one that doesn't.

The last sentence, though, is worth repeating: "This western-centric view is narrow and self-serving."

_Especially_ "self-serving."



Mellor
Actually, when I said "all" what I meant was is that all human groups have some sort of extra-human, invisible creature to whom they bargain for good weather, safety, food, health, etc. All cultures have a creation myth. Resurrection stories, virgin births, divine entities in human form are universal. I meant it more in a collective way.

If one can posit minds in other people that cannot be verified empirically, it's just a short step to positing a mind that does not have to be anchored to a material body. And from there it is another short step to positing an immaterial soul and a transcendent god or gods.

True
I understand and agree with your first paragraph, touj.

But I do not understand your second paragraph. That one (group) may posit a god is demonstrably true, but what does that have to with Koukl's bizarre claim that it *is* true for this one specific case of xianity?

Do tell, religiouslib!
"I have seen God's hand in my life in very specific ways from very specific prayer."

See subject line.

Oh, and "I prayed for x and x happened!" isn't proof.

And neither is "I prayed for a cure for what the doctors said was incurable, and here I am!"

And _especially_ not "I prayed, saw god, and he fixed it!" Unless, of course, you can reproduce it, and show others how to do the same.

In which case, it's probably a physical phenomenon anyway...


Atheism : faith of fools
Atheisms basic tenets:

1. Belief in science, particularly "Everything has a cause". With the exception of the universe and humanity. For those that believe that there is a cause, they have simply concluded that they are sure it isn't God.

2. Empiricism is paramount: experiences with science are held in highest regard but Christians' personal experiences with Christ are to be brushed aside.

3. Belief that everyone around them is hoodwinked with false religion-except them. They really are too smart to be fooled like the rest of these plebes.

Atheism is all about using science to convince oneself you are the highest being in this world. Ironically its the opiate of the atheists.

Science can only explain how, not why.

Psalms 14:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

PS. Touj, how long did it take those genes to form? Too bad there is no science to back up your silly claim.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/crutches.html

It is a leap of faith - so what?
Respectfully, Mr. Koukl, because I write this as a deeply religious Christian, Christianity is, in fact, a leap of faith. That is why they call it faith.

Being a Christian does not require scientific proof. Finding the ethics of Christianity to be good, does not make one a Christian. Believing that a man called Jesus actually lived and is recorded in the historical record does not make one Christian.

Being a Christian requires a belief that Jesus was the Christ, that he was born of a virgin, that he lived and that after his death, he was raised by God the father. No amount of science or western philosophic rationality will get you there. That requires faith. The willingness to place belief over logic.

And there is not anything wrong with that. Some mysteries are of God, for him to reveal as he wishes. I don't require proof.

talent scout
Talent, you have my apology for interfering in your post.
I hope that there’s no hard feelings.

MellerSJ
Hi Meller :) Nice to see your name again

I probably shouldn't comment because I do not have time for a long discussion so forgive me if this seems like a 'hit and run.'

You are correct in pointing out that the fact that lots of smart people were and are Christians does not prove Christianity. It does however do a lot to invalidate the idea that only naive and uneducated simpletons would believe in "an imaginary friend," like God. I love C.S. Lewis' quote, "My intellect could no longer support my atheism." (sorry if I've used this before but it is worth repeating).

You are also correct in saying that the strength of Mr. Koukle's belief does not prove Christianity. May I in turn point out that the strength of your unbelief does not disprove Christianity?

Who designed God? God, by definition, needs no cause in that He has no beginning. Scripture teaches that God created time. The universe and all it consists of has a beginning, therefore needs a cause. God. Not that I think I can convince you of this-- I am only answering your question from a Christian perspective.

Emergent behavior?---I believe we've had that debate before---My position then was (if I remember your argument correctly) that you had simply replaced a designer God with 'godlike ' designer genes.


The fact that multitudes upon multitudes of people across generations have not only been comforted, but whose lives have also been changed for the better by what they claim is a relationship with the living Christ, again does not prove Christianity. But really it must be something like evidence to someone who is not completely closed-minded.

jjones29
I believe you missed the point of the title in who it was directed to and about.

quote:
Stringent rationality and Christianity have found harmony in the minds of some of the most lettered people in our history books.
-----
Some seem to think Christianity demands one to quit thinking altogether and just make believe he has any rational reasons to come into the Faith of Jesus Christ and are incapable to address other subjects of learning.

Thats why Gregory Koukl said this:
"So when I was drawn into the Kingdom, it was an epiphany of sorts to realize how wrong I was. Early on I discovered Francis Schaeffer and his seminal trilogy—The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Then there was C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, J.P. Moreland"
--------
At least that is what I got out of it as he shows he himself once thought like that.

I think you are a fine man
foxfire22 writes: 11:39 PM
talent scout
Talent, you have my apology for interfering in your post.
I hope that there’s no hard feelings.
------------
Had none then and none now.
I wish you the best and to be stronger than ever in your Faith in Jesus Christ.

God Bless you sir.

Float your boat
If Christianity floats your boat, if it makes life & death more meaningful and less fearful, it doesn't matter that Jesus is dead and isn't coming back. Or that embracing it really is a leap of faith that scratches the itch of a psycho-emotional warm fuzzy religious ecstasy.

That the Christ Myth is extremely powerful, seductive and life changing is not in question.

The invention of Christianity from the Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus from Nazareth is, no doubt, the greatest story ever told. Paul and the gospel evangelists were geniuses.

But there's excellent reason Paul could only sell his "gospel" to the Greeks and not to Jews who actually knew/know the Hebrew scriptures. Which Paul so tortured and mangled to find a "Christ" in the crucified Jesus. (Jesus was only 1 of 1000s of poor 1st Century Jews crucified by the Romans).

Paul (and Luther, Joseph Smith) all qualify as religious genius judged by the seductiveness and durability and sheer emotional life-changing power of their creations.

Still, Jesus would turn over in his grave if he ever found out what the Christ Myth, Paul and the NT did to his Jewish person, Jewish hope and faith, Jewish scriptures and Jewish God.

Footnote Greg's 'impressive list' that neither Eusebius (a most unreliable and tendentious quasi-historian) nor Isaac Newton bought into the "Trinity". With excellent reason. Even including poor Josh McDowell with other earlier Christian "thinkers" like Aquinas and Descartes tells us poor Greg is not to be taken seriously, except maybe in a tent revival or testimony meaning. Or other celebrations of leaps of faith.

How utterly stupid
"But there's excellent reason Paul could only sell his "gospel" to the Greeks and not to Jews who actually knew/know the Hebrew scriptures."

Ding dong ding dong

Shelama - Are you a Jew?


I have read your anti-Christian posts before, but it just occurred to me that you might not be an unbeliever in God the Father, maybe you're just an unbeliever in God the Son.


Are you Jewish, or are you an atheist, or something else entirely?


I don't have much time this evening, but I'll check in tomorrow for your reply.

Atheism and the religion of the dead…

We are all born atheists and at enmity with God and rightly so because we are under His wrath as lawbreakers fallen in Adam. There is nothing special about atheism. This is our natural state and what is to be expected says the Bible. In this state we are said to be dead in sin and totally depraved, meaning that we are helpless to do anything to help ourselves spiritually to escape the wrath to come. With this view of man, helpless and deceived so that we love what condemns us and hate what is for our good, how is it that any are saved?

Herein is the miracle of Christianity that separates it from everything else. In the gospel the power of God is demonstrated so that the dead are raised to newness of life. An atheist cannot be persuaded to become a Christian. To him the gospel is foolishness. He will not forsake the wisdom of men for the wisdom of God revealed in the gospel. He must be born again to see the kingdom of God. He must see the kingdom before he can enter in by exercising repentance and faith.

'[I]f anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.' [2 Corinthians 5:17]

A new creation is all that matters. Atheism is for dead men.

If you are in Christ then gives thanks that God raised you from the dead.

If you remain dead in your sin, then plead with Christ to give you a heart to repent and believe the gospel.

mellors
Actually, it really doesn't have anything to do with the actual column because in my view the whole piece is based on fallacy and little understanding of the human mind. What I meant was that Christian humans, or twenty-first century humans have not proved anything by reason, as the columnist suggests - we are as bound to our primitive, evolutionary tendencies to believe in invisible "minds" and powerful deities as our ancestors 40,000 years ago.

I also meant that the characteristics we needed for survival, which included the ability to posit separate agents led to the very column at the top of this thread. AT some point we were able to determine that minds, intentions and thoughts existed in other people, even though we couldn't prove it. From there, it's easy to attribute those qualities to someone we can't see.

continued

continued
There is a kind of interesting experiment involving children, where they are instructed to view a play with puppets. In the play, Puppet A comes onstage and puts a marble into a red box, and leaves - then puppet B comes onstage, removes the marble and puts it into a blue box next to it. When very young children, or autistic children are asked where puppet A will look for the marble, they will always name the blue box, because they aren't yet able to imagine a complete mind separate from their own or imagine what it might think...they know where the marble is. When they are older, they will name the red box because they can conceptualize the mental processes in puppet B, they know he didn't see the switch and can deduce his logic. Crudely put, it's the ability to imagine one's self in other people's heads.

I know that has little to do with the column, about which there isn't much for me to say except that I'm always mystified about people who can't just settle for faith and seem to need some kind of empirical evidence for something that can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelled. This columnist's "reason" is just an evolutionary by-product of the human ability to imagine a whole other mind-set, real or not.


ElizabethBennet writes
"You are correct in pointing out that the fact that lots of smart people were and are Christians does not prove Christianity. It does however do a lot to invalidate the idea that only naive and uneducated simpletons would believe in "an imaginary friend," like God."

Agreed. But then I did not say that.

"You are also correct in saying that the strength of Mr. Koukle's belief does not prove Christianity. May I in turn point out that the strength of your unbelief does not disprove Christianity?"

Of course. You can't prove a negative. Anyway, it's Koukl making the extraordinary claims. They require extraordinary proof.

"Who designed God? God, by definition, needs no cause in that He has no beginning. Scripture teaches that God created time. The universe and all it consists of has a beginning, therefore needs a cause. God. Not that I think I can convince you of this-- I am only answering your question from a Christian perspective."

Correct again. You are merely repeating the old saw that if time is linear (and does not elongate the closer we get to t=0), then there must be a Prime Cause.

I'm happy to grant that. Doesn't mean It sent it's only son; that It has a personal relationship with anyone; or that It should take an interest in my sex life.

"Emergent behavior?---I believe we've had that debate before---My position then was (if I remember your argument correctly) that you had simply replaced a designer God with 'godlike ' designer genes."

Nothing "godlike" about it. The combination of random mutation and natural selection necessarily implies that only 'good' mutations survive. What's godlike about that?

Sorry, but no
ElizabethBennet writes: "The fact that multitudes upon multitudes of people across generations have not only been comforted, but whose lives have also been changed for the better by what they claim is a relationship with the living Christ, again does not prove Christianity."

This much is certainly true. Much like a child's belief in Santa Claus has enriched that child's life.

"But really it must be something like evidence to someone who is not completely closed-minded"

Here, I'm afraid, you lose your usual rationality.

Please see Fallacies, 1, 2 and 6 above.

It is not close-minded to insist on evidence and logic.


He is wrong in this . . . Part I
The "stringent rationality" of most of these Western thinkers is not Christian. That is NOT to say that Christianity is not rational - it simply does not conform to what the West, today, considers "rationality." Usually, "rationality" in the West comes in the form of egocentric methodologies. This is a result of the Aristotelian scholasticism introduced into Christianity, by accident in theology but on purpose in methodology by Blessed Augustine. It was only exacerbated and promoted by men like Aquinas and Anselm. And William of Ockham. This is not Christian rationality, it is the Western, colloquial "rationality."

That is, it is the definition of rationality that worships the human intellect, the individual ego, as the ultimate arbiter of Truth. Scientism is a natural effect of this - we mistake the creation for the Creator; we mistake fact (as in, if one lowers the temperature of water enough, it will freeze) as Truth. Because the material sciences are the pure product of our own self-worship (the worship of the power of the human intellect as the source of Truth) we mistake material sciences for the source of Truth. Thus, people have the insane notion that biology creates morality (despite the fact that many moral systems are NOT compatible with mere survival, or even increased survival, without labrynthine twists in logic). This last position is only made that much more hilarious in light of the fact that there has never, once, been any proof that genetics determine morality or moral behavior. At most, they can PARTIALLY (though, to what degree is up for debate) explain behavior. Behavior is, at most, a *possible* basis for mores, but NOT morality.

He's Wrong on This . . . Part II
Yet people come up with complex theories about how morality *might* be genetic - without providing any actual evidence of a direct genetic link. Some don't even see the hypocrisy in claiming that it can also depend on inculturation and learned behavior. (Which, are we left to believe, simply came out of nowhere to mix with the genetic component of morality to the get the process started?)

The problem with the love of "reason" and "rationality" in the West is the mistake we make when using these words. "Reason" and "rationality" are NOT ends in and of themselves. One can use reason and rationality to reason his way to and rationalize any position. Even reason and rationality, as methods of discussion, need commonly assumed qualities in order to function. Thus, reason and rationality, logic, are worthless in any argument regarding a specific position UNLESS the STARTING ASSUMPTIONS are agreed upon!

That is, unless we have a common set of starting assumptions, using the *words* "reason" and "logic" and "rationality" is the lazy Western version of cutting out the origin of our generally accepted set of morality (Christianity) and following Rousseau's attempt at creating a wholly human-centric theory of morality. Which, of course, necessarily collapses in on itself if we don't accept the starting assumptions.


He's Wrong on This . . . Part III
We can, then, see that if we start with the assumptions that some races are weaker than others, we can reason our way to the position that the elimination of those races will benefit mankind in general. If we start with the assumption that we are all equal in the eyes of God, then we disagree with the preceding conclusion. Either way, "logic" was used to get to the conclusion - the starting assumptions are the key.

In the West, however, thanks to the horribly misguided men like Aquinas and Anselm, and William, and the tragically mistaken like Blessed Augustine, we have a history of the ever-increasing worship of just such a process as an end in and of itself. We have the elevation of the human intellect and the separation of knowledge between the spiritual spheres and the worldly spheres - the re-emergence of gnostic dualism. Francis Bacon was also instrumental in this.

Through a slow devolution of the Faith, the West simply bled into what it is now - a ghostly apparition of a Christian peoples, ever eaten away by the cancer of egocentrism and self-worship (self-esteem). The human intellect becomes the center of reality, only slightly less pronounced amongst Protestants (who simply denied the pope as an authority by making every man a pope unto himself) than amongst atheists.

All Truth becomes truth, filtered through the perspective of the individual ego. Only the senses supply "reality." Anything outside of the "reality" defined by each individual (which is why Mellors denies the validity of personal witness) is no longer acceptable evidence. All reality is "me" based and "me" filtered. This is the legacy of these men that the author touts as "greats." This is not progress - it is regression into self-worship.

the sinner,

Charles

And to clarify . . .
The pope as infallible is also not a tenent of Christianity. I am not of the church in Rome.

the sinner,

Charles

Lots of Sound and Fury ,,,
...signifying nothing from Charles the Hammer.

OK, Charles, I "witnessed" Mohammed (*) ascend to heaven on a white horse. Does that make it true?

(*) That would Mohammed Ali, of 7 Burnett Close, Bradford.

I see
some of our TH self appointed apologists for all things anti-religion are here. Id really like to be an atheist, but i lack the faith to believe that slime plus time plus chance was enough to bring all of this together. Atheism offers nothing, with the biggest thing missing being hope. There is no hope in atheism. There has been no successful government born and sustained on an atheistic world view, at least not a government id like to be a citizen under. None of the big questions about life proposed by Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers are answered by atheism. When we look at Neitzche we see the consequences of hating God, of hating Christianity, of wanting to live like it was all over when you closed your eyes for your dirt nap. So Mellor and friends, feel free to slam Christianity when you have the answers to life's questions, hard evidence that Christianity is false, that there is no God, and evidence that this world could indeed be a just one without religion. Until then, the way i see it, your spitting in the wind. Your wasting what precious time you believe compromises your entire existence, debating with a bunch of strangers on a political forum. We are a long way in this debate from displaying why Christianity is in fact the faith of the one true living God, we have to start somewhere though don't we?

Only in the Post-modern
MellorSJ2 writes: Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 10:14 PM
Wrong
Touj. claims: "All human beings believe in some form of superior being that controls their fate."

Here's one that doesn't."

Must be so then, huh?

religion
Everyone is just what His god is. All religions except Christianity differ very little from atheism. Their gods are manufactured by 'enlightened thinkers' but these gods have no eternal purpose and do not interpose on behalf of their people. They care not how much a man sins for they have given to 'the initiated' a 'larger hope' by which even the most incorrigible can be restored.
These gods are what their believers choose to make them. These gods say what their makers say and do what their makers prescribe. Leave these devotees alone and they will work out their own responses for since their gods are fashioned like them, they will eventually fashion themselves like their gods.
The spiritually dead cannot praise the Lord God, Creator of the universe, Savior of His people, but the life within Christians constrains us to do so! Praise God!

To MellorSJ2
"Fallacy #1: Lot's of smart people were xians."

Not a fallacy: lots of smart people ARE Christians. Further, Mr. Koukl doesn't use this as a reason that Christianity must be true -- the fact that many smart people had been Christians caused HIM to look more carefully at Christianity. Please read more carefully.

"Fallacy #2: They (and I) believe strongly. The strength of our belief means it must be true."

Nope. What he said was: 'These luminous minds convinced me that Christianity is worth *thinking about*.'
Please consult a dictionary if you don't understand the meaning of the words.

"Fallacy #3: Inducing the truth of proposition from the truth of an unrelated proposition."

Not a fallacy, but rather a case of an unprovable underlying assumption. If God the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, the Creator of the universe exists, then nothing is unrelated to his existence.

"Fallacy #4: Everything needs a designer."

Your accusation of fallacy in this case is itself a case of the strawman fallacy. Mr. Koukl did NOT say that everything needs a designer. Read again, more carefully.

"Fallacy #5: Proof by Personal Incredulity
That is, because it is incredible, the only explanation is god."

The end of the quote reads ...'would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels'

The author assumes, in the absence of proof either way, that the lesser of two improbable events is the correct one. this is a VERY good general rule, though hardly an ironclad one.

"Fallacy #6: It must be true because it gives me comfort."

Where does the author state this? Another strawman fallacy on your part.

Leap of faith?
The evidence of Christ's existance is "omnievident" for those who wish to see. For those who don't it doesn't make any difference in any event for they believe it is foolishness. (1Cor 2:14)

For the Christian -- no matter their individaul church - the miracle of His presence is life changing and presents the true meaning of life.

Those who are not Cjristians could not care and they abound in their misery and ignorance. That is the way it is and has been forever!

Dolly
"We have ZERO credible evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels even existed."

The Gospels themselves are credible historical documents, not merely inspired religious tracts.

It take more faith to be an atheist than
MELLORS12......I wont even go into the talking points, it would serve no purpose. Either you just enjoy a good banter about religion, or you are under conviction. There are no real atheist. It takes far more faith to be an atheist than to accept the fact there there is a creator God. I am in the position to hear testimonies from former so called atheists, and in the end they come around to accept the love and grace of God, or they go into the next world of darkness. If what you believe is not true, you best find out what real truth is. I will pray that you do so.

The Problem With Athiesm
is the same problem pointed out above as an alleged problem for Christians.
This is so basic and so silly simple that "advanced thinkers" on both sides of say, the evolution debate, never cite it. That being, we need somehow to define the existence of "nothing", and then, chronologically, "something".
Forget primordial soup and all that crap, is it possible to define, rationally, "nothing". Absolutely not, impossible. So is it impossible to rationally define something existing infinitely past and future? Mathematically yes, conceptually for a hard science believer, no.
Unless and until atheists and evolutionists alike can explain nothing, something, and infinite existence without inventing their own "gods" in the form of say, the missing link, the primordial soup, dark matter, all kinds of "universal constants" to make the math work out, they simply must yield to the supernatural...period.
Beyond that barrier lies the truth, but the truth does not reside in newtons Laws, Einsteins theory, or the much revered scientific method.

Dolly (love the creativity, BTW)
Nice. Who argues credibly, that Jakes et al weren't writing fiction?

No, sorry. Apart from your obvious disdain for the implications contained therein, they remain credible historical documents.

I am sorry you may have had bad experiences within Christianity, it does not surprise me, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what is really going on with you is actually intellectual growth, but I hope you aren't confusing modern Western versions of it with Jesus Himself.

MellorSJ, 2:04AM
-- Correct again. You are merely repeating the old saw that if time is linear (and does not elongate the closer we get to t=0), then there must be a Prime Cause. --

No, that's not all there is to it. The previous poster alluded to the fact that God created time.

What is time? It's another means of measuring the universe. According to the Bible, God created the universe. He isn't bound by time, or by distance, or by any other means of measuring the universe. When Moses asked for His Name, He answered "I am" --- not, "I was, I am and I will be." (Exodus 3:14.)

If I build a 3' x 4' x 5' box, am I necessarily bound to stay within it?

to dolly
Dolly, just like there are no real atheist, there can be no ex-Christians. If you truly accepted Jesus to be who he said he is, there is no going back. So I have to believe you never really made that decision, or you are just confused. So called athiest make up about 2% of the population of the U.S. even in todays secular culture. You have been hurt by religion, our some "religious" person. Sorry about that, but I will pray that you find your heart and the truth about the love of Christ before its too late. I just personally heard the testimony of a former atheist from Atlanta. Her entire family were atheist, including her grand parents. She found a bible in a hotel when she was 14, unknown to her very well educated and artist mother she took that bible and read it for years. Finally she attended a revival service in college and was saved. The holy spirit then used her to lead her entire (highly educated) family to Christ. Her mother held out until she was dying of cancer, but she did surrender a year before she died. Yes Dolly there are no real atheist, even you. Check your heart...Ron

Aggressive Ignorance
1 Corinthians 2:14

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

To Dolly Lama
"If you postulate the existence of a god for whom even pure logical absurdities are possible everything can be explained by the talismanic "Godidit!"

But not everything MUST be. Neither I nor the author claimed this.

"A lot of otherwise smart people (a) bring their good luck charms to Las Vegas and (b) check their brains at the door of the Church."

And are a few specific cases representative of all possible cases? Converse accident fallacy.

"I've looked carefully at Christianity, and can find nothing to recommend it. Could it be that he checked his brain at the door?"

Fallacy of anecdotal evidence. Your personal experience proves nothing.


Dolly
Sorry again.

The time for that sort of thing was when they were first written and could have easily been exposed as fraudulent, not twenty-one centuries later.

It is the credibility and motivations of Western Existentialist critics which are questionable, not documents which have survived centuries of scrutiny only to come up against Western Johnny-come-lately whiners who simply don't like being told what to do.

Tell me why, for instance that most of the Jesus Seminar goofballs pushing this stuff are clergymen instead of plumbers?

Hey, would love to continue this but have to get to work. Maybe later.


Aggressive Ignorance
1 Corinthians 2:14

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

To Dolly Lama
"I stopped believing in a good, decent, honorable and just God a long time ago; what I have seen in my travels proves conclusively that such a being cannot possibly exist. "

Fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

What I have seen reinforces my belief that the Bible's view of humanity is entirely correct. People NEED the Lord.

Dolly
"Does this belief aid me in my daily life?"

Why does that raise my antennae?

Maybe later. Ciao.

To Dolly Lama
"Okay, if the God you postulate is more powerful and complicated than the universe, and He didn't require a Designer, it logically follows that the universe itself didn't require a Designer, either."

Now you're changing your argument. Further, God and the Universe are not the same; therefore just because God didn't require a creator does NOT mean that the universe did not.

God and Christianity
This article does what so many articles on the subject attempt-blur the lines between a belief in the existence of a supreme being and belief in Christianity. I believe as does the author that there is a God. But I have no reason to believe that Christianity is any more valid than Buddism.

His argument is that a few men in a single generation changed everything. Wrong. History debunks that entirely. A group of men in a highly politicised conference generations after these men lived decided what Christianity should look like to sell best. The number of followers of Christianity from the beginning who had different versions and different views of if is rather stunning. But their writings and their beliefs were forcefully supressed by those in control of the ideology. The Christian faith has been carefully structured and carefully husbanded to portray a certain image that well may have nothing to do with reality.

Consider this-as a young Catholic I was in highschool before I discovered that crucifiction, including all the horrors we are told accompanied the crucifiction of Jesus, was a very common form of punishment for criminals with the worst forms reserved for political dissedents-like Jesus. Of the 4 apostles whose books are included in the new testament 1 is widely accepted by the Christian academic community to be a forgery. And if you understand how we came by the versions now accepted as authentic you might question the legitimacy of all of them and qood reason. In those for books there are 3 different versions of the resurrection and the differences are not subtle.

Give Christianity a thought? Since I was one I have given it a lot of thought. Leap of faith IS what it takes. It cannot take reasoned examination too long to abandon it.

Dolly
You are one confused and mixed up person. Do you really believe this junk,or are you just making it up to dress up the discussion. How in the world did you get such a distorted view of life in general, and Christians in particular?

Dolly
Here is what I believe to be true 1. The Bible is the inspired word of God, written by men inspired by God ,to give us his unfolding revelation. 2. God loves you, John 3:16 3. We are all sinners Romans 3:23 4. God has a remedy for sin Romans 6:23 5. All may be saved Revelations 15:3-4 (saved from what?) the fires of hell or seperation from God. I live each day with this joy in my heart, the security of knowing where I will spend eternity. You can laugh, you can call me stupid, and you can go your way, but what if you are wrong, do you want to bet eternity on it? If you are right nothing lost, If I am right you are in deep trouble. This life is short, and only a test. We are to love one another, and if I love you I must tell you the Bible story...God bless Ron

my view
My view is that Atheist only are found where people have been able to enjoy the fruits of a society of God believers. If it wasn't for the rewards they recieve in a God believeing society, they would be destitute and soon find a God to worship.

to Dolly Lama
Fortunately, I have more than just personal experience behind my belief.

Dolly Llama is a Joke (or a liar)
Dolly wrote:

“We have no credible evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels even existed”

This is simply false; even by accepted non-Christian philosophical standards. You’re a joke. If you cracked a book on the subject; you’d understand that the dispute is whether he rose from the dead and is the Son of God.

How in the world does anyone take you seriously? Have you lived in a cave your whole life? You obviously have access to a computer now. I suggest you use it.

Very funny screen name by the way, considering what we’re talking about.

To Dolly Lama
"I'm not changing the argument at all; this is Aristotle 101. You either postulate the existence of a being outside the chain of causation, or admit that things can be without being caused, but at the end of the day, you are admitting that things can be without being caused"

But just because one thing lacked a cause, doesn't mean that a different thing did, or even could.

To Dolly Lama
"Whenever you hit seams in your supposedly seamless worldview, you invariably fall back on this crutch. It is an unavoidable aspect of van Til's circular reasoning. The classic example:
Why does a good God countenance evil? Godidit!"

I have invariably fallen back on this crutch? When?
Strawman.

Dolly
Then where do morals come from? Have you ever been to the top of Mount Everest? How do you know it's really there if you haven't experienced it yourself? You must take it on 'faith' b/c you believe the evidence.

Now, what if God could only be experienced convincingly at the top of Mount Everest? Just because YOU haven't been there to be convinced doesn't mean that it's not true.

As an atheist, you have to claim an absolute truth -- that there is no absolute truth. You also have to make the arrogant claim that you KNOW that for all eternity past, all human experience/knowledge present, and all future eternal, that God does not exist. Even the smartest human minds at least confess that they don't know EVERYthing. If you did, you would be God.

Is it at least POSSIBLE that God exists outside the small sphere of knowledge and experience that your human mind inhabits? To insist otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

To dolly lama
"I know how much you Christians hate the arguments of Calvinism ... and the fact that it obliterates the notion of free will."

Red herring. Dismissed.


knight_of_baawa
Congrats; you have a through misunderstanding of Kierkegaard. I suggest you read up; focus on his life. You’ll find your answers.

To Dolly Lama
On your red herring:
You do know that Romans 8:28 merely states that those who love God have been called according to his purpose. It does not mean that they are the ONLY ones whom he has called.

Once again, you err.



Its so sad
reading people's posts and seeing how much effort they are willing to put into denying God's existence.

They have no purpose other than believing they are freeing Christians from enslavement to a God or a science that includes God. As the author pointed out, many intelligent people from all walks of life have been believers, yet here we are in a world of ever accelereating discovery and invention. The development of mankind is in no way hindered by Christians, nor are Christians' personal lives hindered. I am well aware you will claim otherwise but no one is asking you too. No one is coming to you for aid to take the delusion away. Funny, isn't it.

I have no good personal experience with trying to convince others about my belief that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life so I only broadcast it in hope that it comforts someone.

Yet, I marvel that so many are willing to be wrong at any cost. Lack of acceptable evidence for them is reason to dismiss God and subsequently deny any consequences that arise from that decision.

People willing to attempt to persuade others not to believe in God with no proof are willing to be wrong and have some base desire to see others condemned to H*ll. I see no other viable explanation.

There can be no argument that atheists could be wrong. If they deny this, one must deny any credibility on their part. Thus, in order for them to live a life as they choose, unfettered by any creator's desires for them, they would deliver the souls of their children to the fires of H*ll.

Of course, I could be wrong about God. But I love my family too much to risk that. Truly, I risk nothing to believe, and I have only become more convinced with every passing day that God is the truth.


To knight
Good day, long time no correspond.

Sure, FAITH; but not irrational faith. The author never said that faith was nowhere involved.