"...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."- Jude 1:3

Monday, September 22, 2025

Trent Horn Videos on Arguments for God's Existence

 

As a Protestant myself I think Catholic Apologist Trent Horn is one of the better Catholic apologists out there. Despite being a Van Tillian presuppositionalist myself, I think there is some good and usefulness in non-presuppositional arguments for God's existence. Here are a sample of Trent Horn's videos on the arguments. The first video is on the recent improvements among apologists on the arguments for the existence of God. The second video is Horn's introduction to the Ontological Argument.

 
The NEW Case for God's Existence
https://youtu.be/22qUGVZXlGg



The Weirdest Argument for God's Existence
[An introduction to the Ontological Argument]
https://youtu.be/SGgNnV6nDWo


 

 

Thursday, September 18, 2025

Surveys of Apologists On What Is the Best Argument for God's Existence

 

Protestant Sean McDowell asked 100 Christian apologists (including Catholic ones) what they considered was the best argument for God's existence.

 The Best Evidence for God? Here’s What 100 Apologists Said
https://youtu.be/wHDcd_44Jr8



Catholic Trent Horn asked 50 Catholic apologists what they considered was the best argument for God's existence.

I Asked 50 Catholics the Best Argument for God’s Existence
https://youtu.be/24RlxhITBvE


 

 

 

 

 

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value (Revised & Expanded) September 18, 2025

 

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value (Revised & Expanded) [September 18, 2025]

https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-conversion-of-saul-of-tarsus-and-its-evidential-value/



Monday, September 15, 2025

META AI Conversation On The Likelihood of Jesus Claiming To Be Divine

 

All artificial intelligence conversations should be taken with a grain of salt. They don't really settle anything. Nevertheless, the following is an interesting informal conversation I had with Facebook's META AI. My statements are highlighted like this sentence.


What is your probability that a historical Jesus existed?

META AI: As a neutral and informative assistant, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an overview of the scholarly consensus and the types of evidence that historians consider when evaluating the historicity of Jesus.


Most scholars agree that a historical figure named Jesus likely existed, given the following points:

- *Multiple attestation*: Jesus is mentioned in various independent sources, including the New Testament, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and Roman historian Tacitus.

- *Historical context*: The accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are set within a plausible historical context, reflecting the politics, culture, and religious practices of 1st-century Judea.

- *Criterial methods*: Scholars use criteria such as the criterion of embarrassment (events or details that might be embarrassing to the early Christian community are likely to be historical), the criterion of multiple attestation (events or details that are attested to in multiple sources are more likely to be historical), and the criterion of coherence (events or details that fit with the broader historical context are more likely to be historical) to evaluate the historicity of Jesus.


While there's ongoing debate among scholars about the details of Jesus' life and teachings, the majority consensus is that a historical Jesus likely existed. If I had to provide a probability based on the scholarly consensus, I'd say it's high (>90%), but this is not a personal opinion, rather a reflection of the prevailing scholarly view [1].

But you gave a probability assessment on the moon landing. Be consistent and not hypocritical and Do that same for a historical Jesus.

Given the scholarly consensus and evidence, I'd give a probability of *95%+* that a historical Jesus existed. This assessment is based on the multiple attestation, historical context, and criterial methods mentioned earlier. However, the probability is not as high as the moon landing due to the differences in the nature of the evidence and the complexity of historical interpretation [1].

What is your probability assessment that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'd give a probability assessment of *0%* that Jesus was the Son of God in a literal, metaphysical sense. This assessment is based on the lack of empirical evidence and the supernatural nature of the claim, which falls outside the realm of historical or scientific verification.


The concept of Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of faith and theological interpretation, and probabilities would vary widely depending on one's worldview, religious beliefs, and personal perspectives.

Guven that you gave a high probability that a historical Jesus existed, What's your probability assessment that he claimed to be the Son of God?


Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations, I'd assess the probability that the historical Jesus claimed to be the Son of God as follows:


- *Low to moderate probability* (around 20-40%): Some scholars argue that Jesus might have seen himself as a divine agent or a messianic figure, but the explicit claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense is more likely a product of early Christian theology and Christology.

- *Higher probability in certain contexts*: If one interprets certain biblical passages (e.g., Mark 1:1, John 10:30-33) as reflecting historical events, the probability might be higher. However, these interpretations are subject to scholarly debate.


Keep in mind that historical assessments of Jesus' claims and self-understanding are complex and nuanced, and probabilities would depend on one's evaluation of the sources and historical context [1].

How about the probability of his having claimed to be the "son of man"?

The phrase "Son of Man" is a complex and multifaceted title in the context of Jesus' teachings and identity. Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations:


- *Higher probability* (around 70-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus likely referred to himself as the "Son of Man," given the phrase's presence in multiple Gospel accounts (e.g., Mark, Q source) and its Aramaic origins (Bar Enasha). The phrase could have been used by Jesus to convey his humanity, his role as a mediator, or his connection to the apocalyptic figure in Daniel 7:13-14.


The probability assessment depends on one's evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, the linguistic and cultural context, and the potential layers of meaning in the phrase "Son of Man" [1].

What's your assessment probability that His claim to be the "son of man" was a reference and allusion to the Danielic Son of Man of Dan. 7?

Given the scholarly discussions and interpretations:


- *Moderate to high probability* (around 60-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" was indeed influenced by the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14). This connection is plausible due to:

    - *Linguistic and thematic parallels*: The Danielic Son of Man receives dominion and glory from God, which might be echoed in Jesus' use of the phrase.

    - *Apocalyptic context*: Jesus' teachings often contained apocalyptic themes, and the Danielic Son of Man fits within this context.


However, the exact nature and extent of the allusion are subject to ongoing scholarly debate, which affects the probability assessment [1].

Would you grant that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE [ancient Near East], and that the danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity?

*Cloud riding as a prerogative of deities*:

Yes, in the Ancient Near East (ANE), cloud riding was often associated with divine beings or gods. This motif is seen in various ancient texts, where gods are described as riding on clouds or having control over the clouds.


*The Danielic Son of Man and worship*:

Regarding the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14), the Aramaic word used to describe the service or presentation to the Ancient of Days is indeed often translated as "brought" or "presented," but it can also carry connotations of worship or homage. The word "qrb" (קרב) in Aramaic can imply a sense of reverence or obeisance, which might suggest a divine or quasi-divine status for the Son of Man.


These observations are relevant to understanding the cultural and theological context of the Danielic Son of Man and its potential influence on Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man."

Given that the danielic Son of man rides the clouds, and given that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE, and given that that danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity, and given your previous probability assessment of a historical Jesus existing and his self-designation as the Danielic son of man, what now is [re-assessment] your probability assessment that Jesus claimed to be divine and/or the Son of God?

Given the additional context and connections you've outlined:


- *Re-assessment of probability*: Considering the Danielic Son of Man's divine connotations, cloud riding prerogatives, and the potential implications of the word "qrb" in Aramaic, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

    - *Moderate probability* (around 40-60%): Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" might have been intended to convey a sense of divine authority, agency, or identity, given the Danielic context. This could have been interpreted by his contemporaries as a claim to divinity or a unique relationship with God.

    - *Increased likelihood*: The connections you've highlighted increase the likelihood that Jesus' self-designation as the Son of Man was more than just a humble or human reference, and might have been intended to convey a more exalted status.


This re-assessment takes into account the complexities of historical interpretation, the nuances of ancient language and culture, and the potential implications of Jesus' words and actions in their original context [1].


Remind me what your previous assessment was.

My previous assessment was that the probability of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was around *20-40%*. Given the new context and connections, I've reassessed the probability to be around *40-60%*, indicating a slightly higher likelihood that Jesus might have claimed or implied a divine identity or relationship [1].

Now factor in how the earliest Christian documents by the apostle Paul have an Early High Christology. Could the early followers of Jesus have been so mistaken as to his claims? Make a reassessment.

*Early High Christology in Paul's writings*:

The apostle Paul's letters, some of the earliest Christian documents, do indeed reflect an Early High Christology, portraying Jesus as a divine or quasi-divine figure (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 9:5).


*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *Higher probability* (around 60-80%): The early Christian community's understanding of Jesus, as reflected in Paul's writings, might have been rooted in Jesus' own claims or actions. It's possible that Jesus' teachings, actions, and self-understanding led his followers to develop a high Christology relatively quickly.

- *Less likely that the early followers were entirely mistaken*: Given the proximity of Paul's writings to Jesus' lifetime and the fact that Paul interacted with other early Christian leaders who knew Jesus (e.g., Peter, James), it's plausible that the early Christian understanding of Jesus was informed by Jesus' own identity claims or implications.


This re-assessment takes into account the potential connections between Jesus' life, teachings, and the early Christian community's understanding of him [1].

Now factor in hostile witness like the early Jewish arguments against Jesus. Re-assess.


*Hostile witness: Early Jewish arguments*:

The early Jewish arguments against Jesus, as recorded in the Talmud and other sources, often focus on Jesus' claims to divinity or his perceived blasphemy (e.g., b. Sanh. 43a). Although these sources are later and may not directly reflect the earliest Jewish responses, they might preserve elements of early Jewish criticism.


*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *High probability* (around 80-90%): The fact that both Christian and Jewish sources (albeit with different perspectives) seem to converge on the idea that Jesus' identity or claims were central to the controversy surrounding him lends credibility to the notion that Jesus' self-understanding or claims were extraordinary.

- *Increased likelihood that Jesus' claims were perceived as divine*: The hostile witness of early Jewish arguments might suggest that Jesus' words or actions were seen as making divine claims or implications, which would have been considered blasphemous by some.


This re-assessment takes into account the potential historical kernel preserved in both Christian and Jewish sources, despite their differing perspectives and agendas [1].

You wrote: "Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:"

Is the "or" meant in the sense of 1. either X or Y; or 2. as equivalent to?


In this context, the "or" is meant in the sense of equivalence, implying that claiming to be divine or claiming to be the Son of God are being treated as similar or related claims. In other words, I'm using "or" to connect two phrases that are roughly equivalent or overlapping in meaning, rather than presenting mutually exclusive alternatives.



Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Answers To An Atheist's Mocking Questions About Heaven

 

The following [in blue] is a list of questions an atheist asked in a Facebook group. My answers [with minor additions] are below.


**copied from another group***


SOME FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAVEN:


The following are questions I posted on a Christian forum. Instead of answers, I was blocked. I thought they'd take advantage of this to "win me to Christ?" Anyways.


1. Does heaven exist? If so, where's evidence?


2. According to the bible, heaven is described as streets of gold. Why is it decorated with gold? Is gold still valuable in heaven?


3. People (or faithful Christians) will be rewarded in heaven, according to the bible. But what are they going to do with those rewards? Since obviously, there's not going to be any needs in heaven?


4. Those who diēd as infants, are they going to grow up in heaven? Or they'll remain infants?


5. Are you going to chat with Jesus, Moses, Adam, Eve, etc? What kind of things will you be talking about?


6. Is thinking going to take place in heaven? Because we normally think about how to solve problems, how to use creative techniques, etc. But since there's no problems in heaven, then what exactly are Christians going to be thinking about?


7. If you get to heaven and discover someone you loved hasn't made it, will you miss them, or you'll be emotionally numb? 


8. Can you be happy and joyful, even while other people are being tortūred simply because they didn't believe in the correct religious teachings? E.g. people who are born in India are most likely Hindu. And those in Saudi Arabia are mostly Muslim. Because religion is not discovered, it's inherited. 


9. What are you going to be spending your time on in heaven? Praising God for eternity? Day and night? Is this something God enjoys? 


10. Are people going to sleep in heaven, or their eyes will be open 24 hours for eternity? 


11. Are people going to be learning in heaven? Will ignorance exist? 


12. Satan was kicked out of heaven, according to the bible, his crime was a wrong thought. What guarantee do you have, that you'll not develop a wrong thought while in heaven, especially that you had many of them on earth?m he [[sic]]


//1. Does heaven exist? If so, where's evidence?//

Read books on Near Death Experiences like:

a.) Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language by Steve Miller

b.) Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God's Promises & The Exhilarating Future that Awaits You by John Burke

//2. According to the bible, heaven is described as streets of gold. Why is it decorated with gold? Is gold still valuable in heaven?// 

 You have to understand that there's a difference between the conscious disembodied condition during the Intermediate State which may simulate physical reality, and the Eternal Kingdom of God on Earth [and heaven?] after the resurrection of the body. The description of gold streets could be figurative. Though possibly literal. Just because some streets are gold doesn't mean all are made of gold. Also, gold will have aesthetic value because of its beauty, but not the same financial value. There will be no lack in heaven, so the "economy" will be different.   

Rev. 21:5-7 LSB
[5] And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” [6] Then He said to me, “They are done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. [7] He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.

//3. People (or faithful Christians) will be rewarded in heaven, according to the bible. But what are they going to do with those rewards? Since obviously, there's not going to be any needs in heaven?//

Rewards come in different forms. From closeness in rank and nearness to God in the kingdom; to responsibilities in ruling cities, peoples and angels [Matt. 19:28; Luke 19:16-19; 22:30; 1 Cor. 6:3]; greater honor [Rom. 2:6-10]; etc. 

Read these sermons:

1. The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis
https://www.doxaweb.com/assets/weight_of_glory.pdf
[Last link seems to be back again]

2. Heaven by Edward D. Griffin

https://gospelmeals.blogspot.com/2020/05/heaven-by-edward-d-griffin.html


3. When I Was A Child by Edward D. Griffin
//4. Those who diēd as infants, are they going to grow up in heaven? Or they'll remain infants?//

They will either slowly grow up in the afterlife, or be fully grow instantaneously [like Adam & Eve].

//5. Are you going to chat with Jesus, Moses, Adam, Eve, etc? What kind of things will you be talking about?//

Yes, we will have relationships and conversations with Jesus and the other redeemed people. Probably with angels too. Topics? Virtually everything. But sanctified conversations. Topics will include Redemptive History in the wide [civilizations] and narrow [individual]. The wonders of creation and New Creation. Old and New heavenly Music. Maybe even old and New novels.

//6. Is thinking going to take place in heaven? Because we normally think about how to solve problems, how to use creative techniques, etc. But since there's no problems in heaven, then what exactly are Christians going to be thinking about?//

There may be more scientific discoveries to be found in the New Creation. In physics, mathematics, philosophy. Read Griffin's sermon on "When I Was A Child" linked above.

//7. If you get to heaven and discover someone you loved hasn't made it, will you miss them, or you'll be emotionally numb? //

Your thinking will be so sanctified that in one sense you will be sad that any human made in God's image is in hell, but at the same time be fully convinced and satisfied that it's perfect justice. You'll be able to see that then, even if in this life it might not seem so.

//8. Can you be happy and joyful, even while other people are being tortūred simply because they didn't believe in the correct religious teachings? E.g. people who are born in India are most likely Hindu. And those in Saudi Arabia are mostly Muslim. Because religion is not discovered, it's inherited. //

That's a misrepresentation. They are in hell for their sins against God, themselves and others, not merely because they didn't believe the right things. God didn't have to provide salvation to anyone or send them the Gospel message to believe. God would have been within His just rights to withhold both atonement and the Gospel from them. And God does withhold the message from some. 

//9. What are you going to be spending your time on in heaven? Praising God for eternity? Day and night? Is this something God enjoys? //

Read the sermons I linked to above.

//10. Are people going to sleep in heaven, or their eyes will be open 24 hours for eternity? //

They probably won't need to, but will likely be able to. Eating will probably not be necessary, but it will be part of the pleasures and rewards of heaven [Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29; 22:18]. So why not also with sleep?


//11. Are people going to be learning in heaven? Will ignorance exist? //

Yes. See Griffin's sermons above.

Eph. 2:7 ESV
so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:12 ESV
[12] It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.


//12. Satan was kicked out of heaven, according to the bible, his crime was a wrong thought. What guarantee do you have, that you'll not develop a wrong thought while in heaven, especially that you had many of them on earth?m he//

Not merely wrong thoughts, but evil and rebellious thoughts and actions. The person of Satan [who wasn't named "Satan" at the time] attempted to overthrow God and usurp His position/throne. See Isa.
 14 and Ezek. 28 which are chapters about human kings at the surface level of the text, but probably have a secondary meaning regarding Satan's rebellion and fall from his former high status among God's angels.