What is Truth? Norman Geisler Answers

As usual Dr. Geisler uses logic and critical thinking to expose whats wrong with relativism and why truth must be absolute and not subjective!

Ravi Zacharias Answers Stephen Hawkings Claims

Dr. Lennox and Dr. Zacharias demonstrate the bankruptcy of Hawkings claims. This is why philosophy is so useful and such a needed tool. They use the tools of logic and reasoning to show the bankruptcy of "scientism".

Norman Geisler interviewed by Apologetics315

 Norman Geisler, Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary and author of over 70 books. He answers a variety of questions and topics: how he got into apologetics, his greatest influences on his own thinking, the change on the apologetics landscape in the past decades, his suggested required reading for all apologists, the kinds of arguments he has encountered and how they have affected him, advice for studying arguments, the growth of apologetics in the church, the top three topics to focus on, skills apologists should develop, pitfalls to avoid, areas that should be strengthened, the necessity of theology, what he feels the strongest argument is for God's existence, learning from those who disagree, one's prayer life and integrity, favorite illustrations, advice for studying in the field, and more.

For more apologist interviews, visit Apologetics315.com

Is The Super Natural Real?

Excellent exchange between the two!

Alvin Plantinga Knocking Down Atheist Objections

http://closertotruth.com - PBS' Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga (often named as the most important living philosopher of religion today) about typical arguments made by atheists against the existence of God.

William Lane Craig Interviewed on PBS

Uploaded by drcraigvideos on May 16, 2011


PBS' "Closer to Truth" conducted the best interview Dr. William Lane Craig ever had. Host and scientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn asks all the right questions about philosophy, religion, and science with him. You will get a nutshell of Dr. Craig's thoughts in this interview (although his views on the resurrection of Jesus is absent from this interview). Hopefully, it will lead you to pursue more research on the topics. Dr. Craig is quite simply a philosopher's philosopher.

Alvin Plantinga on "Closer to Truth"

Alvin Plantiga, on "Closer to truth" (I believe the host is agnostic) being pressed on arguments for the existence of God. Dr. Plantinga does a great job. Crystal clear arguments!

Thomas Aquinas and Cosmological Arguments

William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith, and other philosophers discuss the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Does God Exist?

This is a paper I wrote a few years back at bible college


My Prolegomena Paper


In my Prolegomena, I will be defending the preconditions for the following statement: “The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, without error in all that it teaches”. I will not be defending the statement, but only the preconditions that make this statement possible.


“Prolegomena” is Greek in origin and means “that which comes before”. Prolegomena assumes and relies on the assumption that apologetics has already been done. Therefore, with prolegomena I am seeking to give rational arguments to defend a certain approach to theology and to demonstrate that the God, Who exists, is the God of the Bible.


To do this, I will be defending three categories. One is the metaphysical argument for not only God’s existence but also for the notion that the God, Who exists, is the One revealed in the Bible. Secondly, I will demonstrate through Epistemology that absolute truth exists; therefore, we can test historical claims such as Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Lastly, I will deal with linguistics demonstrating that God-Talk is possible, and that we can make meaningful statements about God.

Metaphysical Argument
I will start with the Metaphysical Argument for God’s existence. If God does not exist, then everything else in our approach to theology fails. All of our Prolegomena rests on the belief that God exists and that the God, Who exists, is the same as the God of the Bible. This argument is the foundation upon which all others rest upon.

The Vertical Cosmological Argument
There are many arguments that could be given to prove God’s existence such as the Teleological Argument, the Axiological Argument and the Ontological Argument. All of these, when conjoined, make a very strong cumulative case for God’s existence, but perhaps no single argument is stronger for demonstrating God’s existence than the Vertical Cosmological Argument. I will lay out the argument in eight premises and go over each in detail.


1.) Something undeniably exists.
2.) Nothing can not cause something.
3.) Something necessarily and eternally exists.
4.) I am not eternal and necessary.
5.) Whatever is not eternal and necessary needs a cause.
6.) Therefore, there is an eternal and necessary cause for my existence.
7.) This eternal and necessary cause must be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect/good
and personal.
8.) This eternal and necessary cause is identical to the being described as God in the
Bible. [1]

Let’s look at the premises one at a time in more detail.

Premise 1: Something undeniably exists.
In order to deny this, I would have to exist, which would end up being a self- refuting statement like: “I can not speak a word in English”. To deny this truth, I would be affirming it because I must exist in order for me to deny it.

Premise 2: Nothing can not cause something.
Since nothing is nothing, nothing can do nothing, nor can anything come from nothing. Thus, from nothing, nothing comes, but the fact that I exist demonstrates my cause of existence can not be from nothing, since nothing can be the cause of something.

Premise 3: Something necessarily and eternally exists.
From nothing, nothing comes, but something exists {I exist}. This demonstrates that something must necessarily and eternally exist. For there could never be a time when nothing was the cause of something; therefore, something must exist necessarily and eternally. There are several things we can conclude that will follow necessarily from this premise, such as this being must be Pure Actuality or Pure Existence with no potentiality since a necessary being can not, not exist because there is no potential. If there was potential, then this being could have the potential to not exist, but a necessary being can not cease to exist. Therefore, this being must be Pure Actuality. It follows necessarily that since this being, has no potential to not be, this being must also be changeless, non- temporal and non- spatial since both time and space involve change{moment to moment}. However, this being is before space, time and matter thus outside of them. This being must also be One, because if there was another being that was Pure Actuality with no potential, you would not be able to tell them apart since they would differ by nothing. Not to differ by something, is not to differ at all, and if there can be nothing to differentiate between two beings that were Pure Actuality, then there must be only one being. This being must also be simple, not composed of parts, since there is nothing to differentiate within the essence of the being. Because this being is simple, it follows that He must also be indivisible because this being has no parts to be divided up. This being must also be infinite since it is potential that limits a being. However, this being has no potential- thus no limits. This being must also be uncaused because to go from potentiality to actuality involves change, and since this being has no potential and is changeless, it must be necessary and uncaused.

Premise 4: I am not eternal and necessary.
I did not cause my own existence. I have the potential to not exist and whatever has the potential to not exist is not a necessary being. I am contingent, finite and change from one state of actuality to potentiality; therefore, I am not eternal and changeless.

Premise 5: Whatever is not eternal and necessary needs a cause.
As shown in Premise 4, I am only potential existence. Whatever is only potential existence is either uncaused, caused by another or self caused. It can not be uncaused because as shown in Premise 1, something can not come from nothing. Nothing can not be the cause or ground of potentiality to actuality. It was also demonstrated in Premise 4 that I am not eternal and thus need a ground for my being. Premise 1 also demonstrated that potentiality can not be self- caused because I can not cause my own existence before I exist. Therefore, the only other option is that I was caused by another.

Premise 6: Therefore, there is an eternal and necessary cause for my existence.
Adding an infinite series of contingent causes never answers what the ground of being is since it can not be finite, contingent changing beings. It must be grounded in a infinite unchanging being.

Premise 7: This eternal and necessary cause must be all- powerful, all- knowing, perfect and personal.

This being as we have shown is Pure Actuality and as was stated earlier it is potentiality that puts limits on beings. Since this being is limitless, all concepts of finitude must be dropped showing he has infinite power and knowledge.

Premise 8: This eternal and necessary cause is identical to the being described as God in the Christian scriptures.

The God described in the Bible is eternal (Colossians 1; John 1; Hebrews 1:2), changeless (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 6:18), infinite (1 Kings 8:23, Isaiah 66:1), all- powerful (Hebrews 1:3; Jeremiah 32:17) and all- loving (John 3:16; 1 John 4:16). As shown in Premise 3, there can not be two identical beings because there would be no way to tell them apart. Since this argument demonstrates a God that is the One identical to the One revealed in the Christian scriptures, the God of the Bible exists. [2]

[1] Douglas E. Potter, A Prolegomena to Evangelical Theology (Charlotte, NC: Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2009), 36.
[2] Douglas E. Potter, A Prologomena to Evangelical Theology (Charlotte, NC: Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2009), 36-38.

In the Dark - Answers to Critics - Frank Turek

Dr. Turek does a great job equipping Christians, with answers to give a reason for the hope that lies with in us!

Cosmic Treason!

Cosmic Treason

All of our sins, whether they are directed immediately at a righteous God or at the unrighteous men who bear His image, are sins against God. They are an assault on His dignity and holiness.

From the Series: Fear and Trembling

RC Sproul - What to say about bible contradictions

What to say when people ask you about the contradictions that are in the bible.

The psychology of atheism - part 1

Answers to questions concerning the existence of God are continually demanded by atheists. Why is that? Is it that not all of the atheist's questions have been answered? Actually, they have all the answers they need, and they understand them. So if there is a God, then why are there atheists? In "The Psychology of Atheism," Dr. Sproul explains that it is not a lack of information that is keeping the atheist from believing, it is something else.

The Psychology of Atheism is a lecture from the lecture series 'Defending Your faith.'

For more on RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries go to: www.ligonier.org

The psychology of atheism - part 2

Dr. Sproul continues in his lecture on Atheism

Philosophy and Christianity(1/2)

In this broadcast of Giving An Answer, H.C. Felder intervierws Philosophy Professor Jason Reed who defines Philosophy and explains why it is not antithetical to Christianity. He explains how Christianity alone answers the questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years.

Philosophy and Christianity(2/2)

In this broadcast of Giving An Answer, H.C. Felder intervierws Philosophy Professor Jason Reed who defines Philosophy and explains why it is not antithetical to Christianity. He explains how Christianity alone answers the questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years.

Is God Dead? Michael Tooley vs Peter Kreeft

These two philosophers debate the topic!

Why would God allow Evil and Suffering?

Dr. William Lane Craig answers this objection. Many people struggle with this issue and many have turned from Christianity because they do not feel there were good answers to this question. In this video clip Dr. Craig shows why this objection is not without an adequate and powerful response!

If God Why Evil?

Dr. Norman Geisler does a wonderful job explaining the problem of evil and gives the proper and thoughtful response to this problem!

Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God?

Well known Atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins comes back for a second debate with Christian apologist D.r. John Lennox as they discuss science, theology and ethics. This is a very good discussion, please enjoy!!!