Apologetics Lane

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson

John A.T. Robinson's classic work that presents some good reasons to suggest that all or most of the New Testament books were written prior to 70 CE because the destruction of Jerusalem is never clearly referred to as having occurred in the past.

http://richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf

or

http://web.archive.org/web/20070803221016/http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.pdf

or

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EAh-QzE8TxQ-7i-9ONxCg5t_1fcPgsZS

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Evidence for God and A Case for Christianity

Triablogue is one of my favorite Blogs I visit. The Triabloggers have addressed the evidence for God's existence and the truth of Christianity many, many multiple times. The following are some examples:

Evidence for God
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/12/im-going-to-list-and-summarize-what-i.html

Required reading for atheists
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/required-reading-for-atheists.html

Making a case for Christianity
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/making-case-for-christianity.html

A case for Christ
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-case-for-christ.html

See also links to the Triablogue eBooks at the right of their blogpage. They include eBooks like:

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Atheistic Objection to "Thoughts & Prayers"

Recently it's been popular on social media to object to theists stating that their "thoughts & prayers" go out to the living victims of tragedy. Usually, this objection comes from simplistic atheists. The following meme is representative of their objection.

I got that meme from an atheistic Facebook group. The following is my response [with minor adjustments].

1. The apparent fact that the phrase "thought & prayers" instead of merely "prayers" has, from my observation, arisen after the emergence of aggressive atheism [cf. The New Atheism movement] suggests to me that that addition of "thoughts" to the simple term "prayers" was an attempt by non-theists and atheists to be included in wishing the living victims of tragedy well. Especially since, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of most prayers are thoughts. You can have thought without prayer, but you usually don't have prayer without thought [I'm leaving aside the issue of speaking in tongues whereby one allegedly can pray without knowing what one is praying about because it's not pertinent to the issue]. Given theism, the statement "Our thoughts and prayers are for/with the victims" would tend to seem to be redundant. So, if there's any asininity to the phrase "thoughts & prayers", it might actually find its source in atheism, not theism.

2. Those who object to people saying they are praying for the living victims of tragedy on account of the [alleged] fact that praying doesn't do anything to help beg the question that it doesn't help. They would have to be omniscient to know all the various ways God might respond to prayer in the short term, long term, the spiritual, the physical, the emotional, the financial, the earthly, the heavenly [e.g. victims of tragedy might end up getting "saved" because of seeing their need for God]. So, if anything, it's objectors to praying and prayers who are potentially being unmerciful toward the victims. If the atheistic objectors point out that theists who pray don't also do something tangible in this physical world, so what? Not everyone (whether theist or atheist) can do something tangible or financial (etc.) about a situation. Since, hard atheism [positive belief in the non-existence of all possible gods], as opposed to soft atheism [mere lack of a belief in gods], is impossible to prove; the logical, rational and merciful thing is for soft atheists to tolerate [or even encourage] theists to pray for victims of tragedy. But many atheists would rather not be that logical or rational.

3. Also, what's wrong with thought? An atheist or theist could be spending some time thinking of the victims and later come to some insight into how he or she CAN **NOW** help the victims, and even possibly prevent future similar tragedies. Isn't that precisely what objectors to "Thoughts & Prayers" are attempting to do when they object? Namely, thinking. That is, unless they're willing to admit that they are being UNTHINKING when they make such asinine objections to " *̲T̲H̲O̲U̲G̲H̲T̲S̲*̲ & Prayers".

Saturday, February 24, 2018

The Evolution of Adam: Additional Thoughts by Michael Heiser

Here's a link to Michael Heiser's article: The Evolution of Adam: Additional Thoughts

Heiser is an Evangelical scholar who holds some views, or allows for possibilities, that are controversial in Evangelical circles. I'm no longer dogmatic on issues of Human Origins. Often for many of the same reasons William Lane Craig has given in his lecture series on Creation and Evolution. For the longest time my views were mostly in keeping with the RTB Model. It is still my default position. However, for years I've thought about the possibility of Pre-Adamites and/or Co-Adamites in conjunction with some form of evolution. In the following video, Heiser provides some Biblical passages that may support (or allow for the possibility of) the existence of non-Adamite humans.

Michael Heiser - Is the Pre-Adamite Hypothesis Biblical?
https://youtu.be/QmvWnqijFs0

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Mormonism Refuted

Addressing Mormonism has never been an apologetical interest of mine. Nevertheless, they are a major Cult that needs to be addressed. Here are some useful resources that help refute Mormonism.

Leaving Mormonism: Why Scholars Changed Their Minds (Dr. Lynn Wilder and Dr. Corey Miller)

https://youtu.be/Cxt0qNU8caI

Introduction to Mormon Errors by James White

https://youtu.be/a1BLR4rufYA

The Witnessing to Mormons Seminar (1994) by James White
https://youtu.be/aqPVuHzZ1gc

Letters To A Mormon Elder by James White
http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm
or
https://web.archive.org/web/20010205080800/http://www.alphamin.org/LETTERS/mainpage.htm

Old articles on Mormonism by James White
http://vintage.aomin.org/Mormonism.html

Monday, December 18, 2017

The Evil God Hypothesis: Some Observations and Answers

A friend asked:

Hope you've been well!!!! Not sure if you've answered this already, but is it possible for a necessary being to be all-evil? I would think it's not. That only an all-good being can be a necessary being.

My response:

I agree. I could say more, but here's a succinct response to the challenge. I recommend William Lane Craig's debates against Peter Millican [or Here] and Stephen Law, and the times he has addressed this issue in his Question of the Week articles [e.g. #387, and #238] . See also his podcasts on the topic.

I. Presuppositionally, it seems to me that non-theists have a difficult (if not impossible) time making sense of objective good and evil. Therefore, unless and until non-theists rationally provide an independent standard or source of goodness (and therefore a basis for also identifying evil), they cannot launch the "Evil God Hypothesis" challenge as an **External** critique. It can only be an **Internal** critique. However, if Christian theism were shown to be internally consistent, then the "Evil God" challenge against Christianity would fail. And I don't see such internal contradiction.

II. There are different ways of defining "evil". I'll focus on one. One way Augustine did (which he borrowed from Platonism and Neoplatonism) was to see evil as privation, deviation, negation, twisting, defection [think defect], corruption [etc.] "from" or "of" the good and of being. In the Neoplatonic scale/chain of being, being was good, and non-being was evil. There's a Christian analog to that. God originally created all things good. However, evil is that which goes contrary to God's design and/or revealed will for the character of creatures. Evil has no independent existence and being. Evil is parasitic on the good. Evil doesn't have positive ontological reality/status. It's like coldness. It's the absence of heat (to some degree or another). Or a shadow, the absence of light (to some degree or another). An analogy would be like that of a perfect dress. If part of the dress were eaten by a moth, then that would be an "evil" in the dress (which could represent the world or some other being). A perfectly evil dress would be no dress at all because it has been completely eaten by moths. Similarly, a perfectly evil God would be no God (or any type of being) at all. Even the devil, who is arguably the most wicked of creatures has soon good qualities. Qualities that reflect God's original good creation and His communicable attributes. For example, the devil has personality and possesses extremely high intelligence. These are good things in themselves, but he harnesses them in a way contrary to God's revealed will for His creatures. In other words, the devil commits/does evil.
Concerning this paragraph, recall my blogposts:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/11/distinctions-in-gods-will-from.html
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2014/05/god-in-relation-to-law-ex-lex-sub-lego.html

III. Steve Hays has addressed the Evil God challenge multiple times at Triablogue. One of his common points is that the issue is ultimately irrelevant. As Steve wrote in a YouTube comment:

//What argument in particular? The evil god hypothesis? That's just a poor man's version of the Cartesian demon........If the evil god existed, that would be a defeater for atheism no less than Christian theism, so assuming we're supposed to take that thought-experiment seriously, the onus lies on the atheist as much as the Christian. If the evil god exists, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Arguments are futile in that event. If the evil god doesn't exist, arguments are unnecessary in that regard.?//

In other words, if one were to take the Evil God Hypothesis seriously, then it would immediately become a moot point.

IV. I've shown above that a perfectly evil God couldn't exist ontologically. Some theists like William Lane Craig also argue that such a being couldn't exist given the definition of "God" and what's called "perfect being theology" in the theological and philosophical literature. Craig basically defines away the possibility of such an Evil God. Something that has some merit, but which wouldn't be very persuasive for non-theists (and especially anti-theists). In the Western theological and philosophical tradition since Anselm, God has often been defined as the greatest conceivable being, possessing all great making properties [in every possible world]. Such a Maximally Great Being would be morally perfect because moral perfection is one of those great making properties it would necessarily have and possess. Since an "Evil God" would purportedly be both a morally imperfect AND a morally perfect being at the same time and in the same sense, it's a contradictory concept, and contradictions are impossible. Therefore, such a being cannot possibly exist. Just as a Square Circle cannot exist. At most, there could only be a very evil and very powerful being, but that being couldn't be "God" or an "Evil God" [i.e. "God" as defined in the Ontological Argument or Anselmian way]. Let's call such a finite being who is very evil [but not perfectly evil], very intelligent [but not omniscient or omnisapient] and very powerful [but not omnipotent] an Evil god [lower case "g"]. Or, better yet, Very Evil Greatly Empowered Spirit [VEGES]. Incidentally, three year olds inherently dislike VEGES. Especially green ones.

V. Rationally a Very Evil Spirit [i.e. VEGES] doesn't make much sense. From the atheistic proponents of the Evil God Hypothesis [EGH] I understand that such a being would perform both good and evil things in such a way to maximize suffering, but that we wouldn't be able to tell from the percentages of evil and good that the being was either good or evil. The main point of the EGH is to undermine the evidence for the existence of God based on all the good we DO see in the world. Craig has pointed out that theists don't at all (or don't merely IMO) conclude that God is good based on an inductive survey of the balance of good and evil in the world. There are other evidences and arguments that support the existence of God (e.g. the Moral Argument, the Contingency Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument et al.). A proponent of EGH could argue that every evidence and argument for God could appear plausible to us only because the Evil God/Spirit/Cartesian Demon tampers with our brains to make us think they are plausible or valid or even sound. Such a powerful being could be tricking us to think that 2 + 2 = 4, when in actuality [ad arguendo] 4 is the wrong answer. If that's the case, then all argument is moot, as Hays pointed out.

But assuming at least some of our observations and ratiocinations are reliable, then an Evil Spirit [VEGES] doesn't make much rational sense. Such a being would seem to more likely create an unpredictable cartoonish world than the world that we actually observe; which is intricately structured, uniform, elegant, mathematical, consistent and apparently designed and finely-tuned. When we consider all of the physical sciences [e.g. physics, cosmology, cosmogony, chemistry etc.], it seems to me to be clear that if there was a very powerful being who created the world we live in it would have to be EXTREMELY intelligent. Yet, what possible motivation could such a very intelligent and rational being have for maximizing the evil or calamity or suffering in the world? Wouldn't such a being have enough of an ego and self-esteem so as to challenge itself to create something wonderful rather than awful? Making awful things is easy. idiots can do it. But making/creating wonderful things is hard. Executing the latter would be better for its self-esteem than the former since its creation(s) would be a reflection of its own nature and character. That's consistent with a maximally great being, viz. God. Though, admittedly it's conceivable that a finite Evil Spirit [VEGES] might have low self-esteem and so wreaks havoc on its creatures like a disturbed child who burns insects using a magnifying glass. But such petty behavior would seem to be beneath the dignity of a highly intelligent finite being [much less a maximally great one]. This makes some sense even if the Spirit doesn't intend for us to know it or worship it. However, were such a being to exist, it's also the case that there are other rational conscious agents which it created that can evaluate its creation, namely us human beings. Wouldn't such a being want to impress us with its power and wisdom [cf. Rom. 1:19-20ff.] instead of the lack of power and wisdom? How much more if it does want us to worship it? IF it WOULD want us to worship it for its moral perfections even though it secretly knows its own evil behavior, that would seem to lead to its Cognitive Dissonance. Intelligence usually prefers consistency over inconsistency. The consistency and uniformity we see in the physical world would imply an internal rational, existential and psychological consistency on the part of the creator/Creator that argues against the VEGES favoring, creating, planning and enjoying pointless evil and suffering.

VI. If a VEGES existed, then it would (IMO) likely NOT make the evidence for one religion greater than that for others. Yet, from my (admittedly) limited inductive research (and that of others whose research I stand on), the case for Christianity is much stronger than for other worldviews. If the religions of the world were inspired by the VEGES to confuse mankind, then why providentially make Christianity have a better apologetical case for it than (most or [apparently via induction] all) other worldviews? If that's true, then that tips the scales away from an VEGES. For at least two reasons. 1. There's independent evidence for the truth of Christianity and its specific God, as Craig has pointed out. So, that tips the scales away from and equal 50/50 balance. 2. Given EGH/VEGES, it's unlikely that any one theistic worldview would have better credentials. It's true that one could argue that the EG/VEGES could have providentially created the Christian religion for it to be worshipped (along with the other religions). But that suffers from at least two problems. 1. The Cognitive Dissonance I mentioned above. 2. The numbers of people who worship the Christian God, while consistent with Calvinism, is not so consistent with a being that wants to (nearly?) maximize belief and devotion to it from its creatures. Though, in all honesty, and to play the VEGES advocate, this is not strictly illogical/inconsistent. Especially since such a being could have created multiple worlds/universes, some of which have entire civilizations that uniformly worship it, so that of all rational creatures in the entire multiverse, only a small percentage of them don't worship it in one similar form [a form that intersects all universes but that's also dishonest since it doesn't accurately represent its true nature and character]. Or, given all civilizations in all universes, on average, there is no singular worldview that has better credentials. However, WE only have this world/globe to do an inductive investigation, and IMO Christianity does stand out better than the rest. Logical possibilities which we have no evidence for shouldn't automatically trump inductive observations.
See my blogpost here on a related topic:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-problem-of-evil-brief-conversation.html

VII. Finally, the existence of Evil, if acknowledged and granted as a premise, suggests or even requires an ultimate Good. The Moral Argument for God's Existence (argued by many theists like William Lane Craig) has as its corollary the inference that evil (and evils) actually proves the existence of God. Theists have argued that objective evil can only exist in contrast to an objective standard of Good/Goodness. Such a standard is more plausibly personal than impersonal [see video below]. Therefore, if objective evil exists and can only exist if God [the maximally great being] exists, then God exists. In which case NEITHER the Evil God [of the EGH] or the Very Evil Greatly Empowered Spirit exist [since God does exist], and their Hypotheses fail as a challenge to theism and (IMO) especially Christian Theism.