Islam vs Christianity Part 1

The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity
Abdullah al-Andalusi vs. David Wood
Opening Statements
London, England
July 18th, 2009

This is an excerpt from Bakers Encyclopedia of Apologetics by Dr. Norman Geisler

The Nature of God
Natural Theology deals with what can be known about the existence and nature of God by natural reason, apart from any supernatural revelation. According to classical theists such as Tomas Aquinas (1225-1274), all of the essential metaphysical attributes of God can be known by natural reason. This includes God's aseity, simplicity, immutability, eternality, unity, infinity, and morality.
Aseity (Self-Existence). Most classical theists see God's Aseity or Pure Existence as a key attribute. The early church fathers, as well as Augustine (354-430), Anselm (1033-1109), and Aquinas, continually cite the Bible in support of this position. In defending God's self-existence (aseity) classical theists such as Aquinas are fond of citing Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." This they understand to refer to God as Pure Being or Existence.
God is Pure Actuality, with no potentiality in His being whatsoever. Whatever has potentiality (potency) needs to be actualized or effected by another. And since God is the ultimate Cause, there is nothing Him to actualize any potential (i. e. ability) He may have. Nor can God actualize His own potential to exist, since this would mean He caused His own existence. But a self caused being is impossible, since it cannot create itself. Something has to exist before it can to do anything. Even God cannot lift Himself into being by His own ontological bootstraps. Thus, God must be Pure Actuality in His Being.
Of course, God has the potential to create other things. But He cannot bring Himself into being. He always was. And while God has the potential to do other things, He cannot be anything other than what He is. He has the power to create other things (active potency), but He does not have the power (passive potency) to exist in any other way than He does, namely, as an infinite, eternal, necessary, and simple Being.
God's aseity means that He is Being; everything else merely has being. God is Pure Actuality; all other things have both actuality and potentiality. Thus, God, cannot not exist. All creatures can be nonexistent. That is, they have the potentiality for nonexistence. Only God is a Necessary Being. All other beings are contingent.
Simplicty


(Indivisibility). Since God is not composed in His Being, but is Pure Existence, Pure Actuality with no potentiality; it follows that He is simple and indivisible. A Being that by nature is not composed cannot be decomposed. One that has no parts cannot be torn apart. Hence, God has absolute simplicity with no possibility of being divided. He is literally indivisble.
Likewise, a God of Pure Actuality with no potentiality cannot be divided. For if it were divisible, then it would have the potential to be divided. But Pure Actuality has no potentiality in its Being whatsoever. Hence, it must be absolutely simple or indivisible.
God's indivisibility follows also from His immutability. For if God could be divided, He could change. But God is unchangeable by nature. Thus He cannot be divided. He must be absolutely simple in His nature.



Necessity (Noncontingency). God is by nature an absolutely necessary Being. That is, He cannot not exist. God is not a may-be but a must-be kind of Being. He is not contingent, since He does not have the possibility not to exist. If He has no potentiality not to exist, then He must exist.
This is not to say that the ontological argument is valid. Aquinas considered and rejected Anselm's proof for God. If God (i.e. Pure Actuality) exists, then He must exist necessarily. But one cannot simply define Him into existence. Aquinas offered his famous cosmological arguments for God's existence (Summa Theoligica, 1.2.3). And once we know, from reason and revelation , that God exists, then we can be sure that He must exist necessarily. Such a being has no potential not to exist.





Immutability (Unchangeability). In his epic Summa Theoligica (1a.9.1), Aquinas offers three basic arguments in favor of God's unchangeability. The first argument is passed on the fact that a God of Pure Actuality ("I-Am-ness") has no potentiality. It follows, therefore, that God cannot change (Exodus 3:14). Whatever changes has to have the potential to change. But as pure Actuality, God has no potential, so He cannot change.
The second argument for God's immutability follows from His simplicity. Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what does not change. God cannot change because an absolutely simple being has no composition. If everything about a being changed, then it would be an entirely new being. In fact, it would not be change but annihilation of one thing and a creation of something entirely new. Now if, in every change in a being something remains the same and something does not, then it must be composed of these two elements. So an absolutely simple being with no composition cannot change.
The third argument for God's unchangeability argues from His absolute perfection. Whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since He could not be better or more complete. Therefore, God cannot change. If He did, He would not be God for He would have lacked some perfection.
Aquinas also argues that God alone is immutable (Summa Theologica, 1a.9.2). All creatures exist only because of the will of the Creator. His power brought them into existence, and it is His power that keeps them in existence. Therefore, if He withdrew His power they would cease to exist. Whatever can cease to exist is not immutable. Therefore, God alone is immutable; everything else could cease to exist.


Imassability (without Passions). A long-recognized attribute of God that has recently come under attack is impassability. God is without passions. Passion implies desire for what one does not have. But God, as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing. To lack something He would have to have a potentiality to have it. But God is Pure Actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. Therefore, God is completely and infinitely satisfied in His own perfection.
However, to say that God is impassable in the sense that He has no passions or cravings for fulfillment is not to say that He has no feelings. God feels anger at sin and rejoices in righteousness. But God's feelings are unchanging. He always, unchangingly, feels the same sense of anger at sin. He never ceases to rejoice in goodness and righteousness. Thus, God has no changing passions, but He does have unchanging feelings.





Eternity (Nontemporality). God is not temporal (Summa Theologica, 1a. 10, 1). He is beyond time. Aquinas offers several arguments in support of this conclusion. The first argument goes:
1. Whatever exists in time can be computed according to its befores and afters.
2. Changeless being, as God is, has no befores or afters; it is always the same.
3. Consequently, God must be timeless.
Time is duration characterized by substantial and accidental changes. A substantial change is a change in what something is. An accidental change is a change in what something has. Growing knowledge is an accidental change in a being. Aquinas sees three levels of being in relation to time and eternity:
1. God is eternity is Pure Actuality, without essential or accidental change.
2. Angels and saints who dwell in the spiritual world of heaven live in aeviternity (or aevum).
3. Human beings, comprising soul and body, form and matter, live in time.
Eternity (God) endures without any potency. Aeviternity (angels) endure with completely actualized potency. Their changes are not essential but accidental. Spiritual beings in aviternity do not change in their essence, though they do undergo accidental changes. Angels increase in knowledge by divine infusion, and they have changableness with regard to choice, intelligence, affections and places (Summa Theologica, 1a.10.6). But with no substantial changes in aeviterny, angels are immutable in their level of grace and charity. What is true of the angels is also true of the elect in heaven.
Time (humanity) endures with progressive actualized potency.
The second argument for God's eternity similarly follows from immutability. It begins with the premise that whatever is immutable does not change in the state of its being. Whatever is in time goes through succession of states. So whatever is immutable is not temporable. This argument stresses another aspect of time; whatever is temporal has successive states, one after the other. God does not, so He is not temporal.
Total immutability necessarily implies eternity (Summa Theologica, 1a.10.2). For whatever changes substantially is in time and can be computed according to before and after. Whatever does not change cannot be in time, since it has no different states by which before and after can be computed. It never changes. Whatever does not change is not temporal. Not only is God eternal, but He alone is eternal (Summa Theologica, 1a.10.3), for He alone is essentially immutable.
Aquinas distinguishes eternity from endless time (Summa Theologica, 1a.10.4). First, whatever is essentially whole (eternity) is essentially different from what has parts (time). Eternity is now forever; time includes past, present, and future, now and then. The implication of this is that God's eternity is not divided; it is all present to Him in His eternal now. So it must be essentially different from time in successive moments.
Second, endless time is just more an elongation of time. But eternity differs qualitatively. It differs essentially, not merely accidentally. Eternity is an essential, changeless state of being that transcends moment-by-successive-moment reality. Time measures that reality, or rather the stage on which reality plays out.
Third, an eternal being cannot change, whereas time involves change. By change can measurements of before and after be made. Whatever can be computed according to before and after is not eternal. Endless time can be computed according to before and after. Hence, endless time is not the same as eternity. The eternal is changeless, but what can be computed by its before and after has changed. It follows, then, that the eternal now cannot live in relation to endless befores and afters.
Obviously, Aquinas saw a critical difference between the "now" of time, and the "now" of eternity. The now of time is moveable. The now of eternity is not moveable in any way. The eternal now is unchanging, but the now of time is ever changing. There is only an analogy between time and eternity; they cannot be the same. God's now has no past or future; time's now does.
Some has mistakenly concluded that Aquinas did not believe in God's duration for eternity, because he rejected temporality in God. Aquinas argued that duration occurs as long as actuality exists. But eternity, aeviternity, and time endure in different ways.
It follows, therefore that the essential difference in the quality of the duration in time, aeviternity, and eternity comes from the condition of the actuality. God is Pure Actuality. Angels have received total actuality from God in their created spiritual forms. Human beings progressively receive actuality in both spiritual form and material body.
Since God endures without potentiality, He cannot endure progressively. He endures in a much higher way -as Pure Actuality.





Immensity -- Along with eternity is the attribute of immensity (nonspatiality). God is not limited in time, nor is He limited in space. In God's immanence He fills space, but He is not spatial. Only material things exist in space and time, and God is not material. "God is a spirit" (John 4:24). As spiritual, God is not material or spatial. It is part of God's transcendence that He is beyond both time and space.
Unity. Classical theists have offered three reasons for God's unity (Summa Theologica, 1a.11.3). The first argument is from the simplicity of God. An absolutely simple being cannot be more than one, since to be more than one there must be parts, but simple beings have no parts. Absolutely simple beings have no parts. Absolutely simple beings are not divisible. God is an absolutely simple being. Therefore, God cannot be more than one being.
God's perfection argues for His unity. If two or more gods existed, they would have to differ. In order to differ, one must have what the other lacks. But an absolutely perfect being cannot lack anything. Therefore, there can only be one absolutely perfect being. God's unity also can be inferred from the unity of the world. The world is composed of diverse things. Diverse things do not come together unless they are ordered. But the world has ordered unity. Therefore, there must be one Orderer of the world.
Theists argue that essential unity is better explained by one Orderer than by many orderers. For one is the essential cause of oneness, but many is only the accidental cause of oneness. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that there is only one cause of the world, not many.
Relatability (to the World). One criticism of classical theism is that an eternal, unchanging God could not relate to a changing world. Aquinas anticipated this objection and treated it extensively.
There are three kinds of relations: One where both terms are ideas; one where both terms are real; and one where one term is real and one is an idea (Summa Theologica, 1a.13.7).


Now since creatures are dependent on God but God is not dependent on them, they are related as real to an idea. That is, God knows about the relationship of dependence but He does not have it. When there is a change in the creature there is no change in God. Just as when the man changes his position from one side of the pillar to the other, the pillar does not change; only the man changes in relation to the pillar. So, while the relationship between God and creatures is real, God is in no sense dependent in that relationship.
Aquinas is only denying dependent relationships, not all real ones. God never changes as He relates to the world, but real changes do occur in that relation with the world. The man's relation to the pillar really changes when he moves, but the pillar does not change.
The real but unchanging relation of God to the world is made even more clear when Aquinas considers how the eternal God relates to a temporal world (Summa Theologica, 1a13.7, ad 2). God condescends to relate to humans as if He shared time with them. He can create a temporal relation that in no way changes Him. Eternity can move in time, though time cannot move in eternity. To have a relationship with the temporal world, God does not have to be temporal. It makes no more sense to say God has to be temporal in order to relate to a temporal world than to say He has to be a creature in order to create.
God is really related to creatures as their Creator. But creatures are really related to God only because He is their Creator. They are dependent on that Creator-creature bond, He is not. Therefore, the relation of God to creatures is real and not merely ideal. However, it is a real relationship of dependence on the part of the creatures but not a relation of dependence on the part of God (Summa Theologica, 1a.13.7, ad 5).



God's Knowledge. God knows Himself. If God is absolutely simple, can He know Himself? All knowledge involves both a knower and a known. But God has no such duality. Aquinas argues that in self-knowledge the knower and known are identical. Hence, God can only know Himself through Himself (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.2). Since God is simple. He knows Himself simply.
God also knows Himself perfectly. Something is known perfectly when its potential to be known is completely realized. And there is no unactualized potentiality to know Himself. Therefore, God's self-knowledge is completely actualized (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.3).
God's knowledge is identical with His essence. For if God's acts of knowledge were really distinct from His essence, then they would be related as actuality to potentiality. But there can be no potentiality in God. Therefore, God's knowledge and essence are really identical (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.4). This does not mean that God cannot know things other than Himself. For God is the efficient cause of all things.
God Knows and Does. Even though God knows other things than Himself, nonetheless, He knows then through Himself. For God does not know other things Himself either successively or inferentially but simultaneously and intuitively (Summa Theologica, 1a. 17.7, ad 2). God's knowledge is more perfect because He does not have to know things discursively through their causes but knows them directly and intuitively (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.7 ad 3,4). God not only knows all things in and through Himself, but He also causes all things by His knowledge. God causes all things by His being, but God's being and His knowledge are identical (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.8). This does not mean that creation is eternal because He is eternal. For God causes all things as they are in His knowledge. But that creation should be eternal was not in God's knowledge (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.8, ad 2).
An effect pre-exists in the mind of its efficient cause. Hence, whatever exists must pre-exist in God, who is its efficient cause. God knows all of the various kinds of perfection in Himself, as well as those which participate in His likeness. Therefore, God knows whatever exists perfectly, insofar as it pre-exists in Him (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.5).
God Knows Every Creature Ideally. God knows His own essence perfectly. And knowing His essence perfectly entails knowing it according to every mode by which it can be known, namely, in itself and as participated in by creatures. But every creature has its own proper form, in which it is like God. It follows, therefore, that God knows the form or idea of every creature as it is modeled after Him. Perfect knowledge involves the ability to distinguish one thing from another. That is, He knows not only what things have in common (esse) but how they differ (essence). Therefore, God knows all things in their individual essences. But all things pre-exist in God's knowledge. Therefore, all things pre-exist in God's knowledge, not only with regard to their existence but also with regard to their individual essences.
The basis for what God knows is His own essence, but the extent of what He knows is not limited to that one essence but reaches to all things like it (Summa Theologica, 1a.15.2). God's knowledge of all things in Himself does not mean that He only knows other things in general but not in particular. For God's knowledge extends as far as does His causality. And God's causality extends to singular things, since He is the cause of every individual thing. Therefore, God knows singular things (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.11). God has a perfect knowledge of everything. And to know something only in general but not in particular is improper knowledge. So, God knows everything properly. That is, He does not know the radii of circles merely by knowing the center; He knows the radii as well as the center.
God Knows Evil. For perfect knowledge of things must include knowing all that can occur to them. Evil can occur as a corruption of good things. Hence, God can know evil. But things are knowable in a way in which they exist. Evil is a privation in good things. Therefore, God knows evil as a privation in a good (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.10).



God Knows Changing Things. Since God is unchanging and His knowledge is identical with His essence, He knows past, present, and future in one eternal now. Therefore, when time changes, God's knowledge does not change, since He knew it in advance. God knows change, but not in the way we know it, in successive time frames. From eternity God knows the whole of before and after the temporal now of human history (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.15).
God knows the same things we do, but He does not know them the same way we know them. Our knowledge is discursive, moving from premises to conclusions. In human knowledge there is twofold discursiveness: One thing is known after another, and one thing is known through another. But God cannot know things sequentially, since He is timeless and knows all things eternally at once. Nor can God know things inferentially, for He is simple and knows all things through the oneness of Himself. Therefore, God cannot know anything discursively (sequentially, from topic to topic), inasmuch as discursive knowledge implies a limitation to consider one thing at a time on the part of the knower (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.7).
God Knows All Possibilities. By knowing Himself perfectly God knows perfectly all the different ways His perfections can be shared by others. For there is within the essence of God all the knowledge of all the possible kinds of things His will could actualize. Hence, God knows all the particular things that could ever be actualized (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.6).
God's Knowledge Allows Free Will. Pulling these strands of thought about God's knowledge together shows us how God's sovereignty works alongside human free will. God's knowledge is not simply of the actual; He also knows all possible sorts of potential. He knows what is and what ever could be. For God knows whatever is in any way it can be known. Now both the actual and the potential are real. Only the impossible has no reality. Thus, whatever is potential is real. It follows that God can know what is potential as well as what is actual (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.9).
This means that God can know future contingents, that is, things that are dependent on free choice. For the future is a potential that pre-exists in God. And God knows whatever exists in Himself as the cause of those things (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.13). Since God is a timeless being, He knows all of time in one eternal now. But the future is part of time. Therefore, God knows the future, including the free acts performed in it. Of course, whatever God knows is known infallibly, since God cannot err in His knowledge. Future contingents are known infallibly. They are contingent with regard to their immediate cause (human free choice) but necessary with regard to God's knowledge. God can do this without eliminating free choice, for an omniscient being can know whatever is not impossible to know. And it is not impossible for a timeless being to know a necessary end caused by a contingent means. God can know a must-be through a may-be but not a can't-be.
Therefore, an omniscient Being knows future actions as necessarily true events. If an action will occur and God knows it, then that event must occur, for an omniscient Mind cannot be wrong about what it knows. Therefore the statement "Everything known by God must necessarily be" is true if it refers to the statement of the truth of God's knowledge, but it is false if it refers to the necessity of the contingent events (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.5).
God's Will. Will can be defined as a being's rational inclination toward its own good. Whatever has intellect also has will, for will follows upon intellect. Further, every nature inclines to its own proper end or good. When the end is rational then the inclination is a rational inclination. God has rational inclination toward the good of His own nature. Therefore, God has will (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.1).
Having will does not mean that God changes. For the object of God's will is His divine Goodness. And whatever is in oneself necessitates no movement outside oneself to attain. Hence, God does not have to move outside Himself to attain His proper end. And will is an inclination toward one's own end. So, there is will in God, inasmuch as He inclines toward His own good. Will also involves love and delight in what is possessed. God loves and delights in the possession of His own nature. Therefore, God has will in the sense of delight but not in the sense of desire. (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.1).





God's Will Causes Things to Be. Simple because God wills things only in Himself does not mean that He wills only Himself. For it is in accord with the nature of being to communicate its good to others. And God is being par excellence; He is the source of all being. Hence, it is in accord with the nature of God to will other beings than Himself (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.2). So God wills things other than Himself in and through Himself. God is not other than Himself, but He can will things other than Himself in Himself. For will implies a relationship. Hence, although God is not other than Himself, yet He wills things other than Himself (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.2, ad 1).
God is not moved by anything outside of Himself when He wills to create through Himself (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.2, ad 2). But in willing things other than Himself, God is not moved by any insufficiency in Himself but by the sufficiency in Himself, that is by His own goodness. Therefore, willing other things through His own sufficiency denotes no insufficiency in God (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.2, ad 3). Just as God knows many things through the oneness of His essence, He can will many things through the oneness (good) of His will (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.2 ad 4).
God Must Will and Can Will. God wills things in two ways. Some things -His own righteousness, for example -He must will. He cannot choose to will otherwise. These things He wills with absolute necessity. Other things God wills with conditional necessity -the righteousness of creatures, for example. Whatever is willed by conditional necessity is not absolutely necessary. Creation is willed by conditional necessity.
Of course, God wills other things because of His own righteousness but not as necessitated by it. For God can exist without willing other things. God need only will His own righteousness necessarily and other things contingently. Therefore, these other things need not be willed with absolute necessity. Of course, it is necessary to God's will that He will His own nature necessarily. But God need not will anything other than Himself. When God did will things other than Himself, He must have willed these things voluntarily (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.3, ad 3).
It would seem that God must will things necessarily. As a Necessary Being He must know necessarily whatever He knows. It would seem then that He must will necessarily what He wills.
Aquinas responds that divine knowing is necessarily related to the created thing known, because the knowledge in the Knower is one with His essence. But divine willing is not necessarily related to the created thing willed. Willing relates to things to things as they exist in themselves, outside of the divine essence. God knows necessarily what He knows but does not will necessarily what He wills. Further, all things exist necessarily in God, but nothing exists necessarily outside of Him. But God need only will what is necessarily of His own nature. Therefore, God need only will other things as they exist in Him but not as they exist in themselves outside of Himself (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.3).
All Created Effects Pre-exist in God's Will. God's will is the cause of all things, so all created things pre-exist in God's knowledge. Will is the inclination to put into action what one knows. Therefore, all created effects flow from God's will (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.4). Of course, God must bestow good on all He chooses to create; God cannot create evil. But it is not necessary that God should will any other being or good than Himself. Therefore, God need only bestow good on what He chooses to create (Summa Theologica, 1a.14.4, ad 1).
God's Will Is Uncaused. As to whether God's will is caused, Aquinas says that, rather, God's will is the cause of all things. What is the cause needs no cause. For in God the means and the end pre-exist in the cause as willed together. Human will looks to a desired end and what may be done to reach the goal. God's will causes both the end willed and the means to that end. And since all things pre-exist in the First Cause (God's will), there is no cause for God's will (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.5).
God's Will Can Never Fail. The will of God is the universal cause of all things. Therefore, the will of God is always fulfilled. What fails to accomplish God's will in one order does so in another order. For example, what falls from the order of His favor returns to the order of His justice. When particular causes fail, the universal cause does not fail. God cannot fail (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.6).
One may speak of an antecedent and consequent will of God. God wills antecedently that all should be saved (2 Peter 3:9). But God wills consequently that some will be lost, namely, those whom justice demands. But what is willed antecedently is not willed absolutely but conditionally. Only the consequent is willed is willed absolutely in view of all the circumstances. Of course, God wills some things through secondary causes. And first causes are sometimes hindered through defects in secondary causes. The movement of the body is hindered by a bad leg. Likewise, God's antecedent will is sometimes hindered by a defect in a secondary cause. But His consequent will is never frustrated. For first universal causes cannot be hindered by defective secondary causes, anymore than righteousness can be hindered by evil. However, God is the universal first cause of being, and His will cannot be hindered in His causing being (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.6, ad 2).
God Does Not Change His Mind. Neither can God's will be changed, for God's will is in perfect accord with His knowledge. He is omniscient, so what He knows will be, will be. Therefore, God's will is unchangeable. This does not mean that God does not will that some things change. But God's will does not change, even though He does will that other things change (Summa Theologica, 1a.19.7). When the Bible speaks of God "repenting," it means that from where we stand it looks as if He has changed His mind. God knew from eternity how it would fall out. And God's will includes intermediate causes, such as human free-will. So God knows what the intermediate causes will choose to do. And God's will is in accord with His unchangeable knowledge. Therefore, God's will never changes, since He wills what He knows will happen. What is willed by conditional necessity does not violate human freedom, since what is willed is conditioned on their freely choosing it. God wills the salvation of human beings conditionally. Therefore, God's will to salvation does not violate human free choice, but uses it.

Sources
Augustine, The City of God
S. Charnock, Discourse upon the Existence and Attributes of God
R. Garriguou-LaGrange, God: His Existence and His Nature
N.L. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Summa Theologica

Roman Catholic Doctrine Debate on Mary

Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Virgin Mary Debate from Larry Wessels on Vimeo.

Dr. James White debates Roman Catholic Robert Fastigg, this debate took place long ago, but still has some good information, enjoy!

Beyond The Big Bang

William Lane Craig: Beyond the Big Bang from Manuel Morales on Vimeo.

Very Good talk by Dr. William Lane Craig!!

David Wood vs John Loftus Debate The Problem Of Evil

http://www.bringyou.to/LoftusWoodProblemEvilDebate.mp3

CLICK HERE

David Wood Debates Atheist John Loftus on the problem of evil. This is a very good debate as you will get to see one of the biggest objections to Gods existence leveled against a well trained Christian apologist.

Many Christians do not think deeply about this issue and many just give a very weak and not a very thoughtful answer to the problem of evil. This debate will give some very good insights about the problem of evil that many may not have thought of.

Dr. Norman Geislers book " Philosophy of Religon" has a very good section on "evil" and gives numerous defenses and also builds off of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Dr. Phil Fernandes debates Dr. Robert Price, fellow of the Jesus seminar on the resurrection of Jesus, enjoy!

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Muslim apologist Shabir Ally vs Christian apologist Dr. Mike Licona, very good 10 min cross fire debate!!

Is The New Testament Reliable?

Dr. Frank Turek defends the NT in his series " I Dont Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist". Those interested can buy the book, which is excellent and he also has the series on DVD at crossexamined.org

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Very good video by one of my friends dealing with one of the most powerful arguments for Gods existence. I have wrote on this argument before and I think that it is an argument all apologists should be aware of.

Here is a piece I wrote a while back on this argument, enjoy!!


I will take you through the Kalam and why I think there are good reasons to believe that God exists and why Theism is much more plausible than Atheism

Argument # 1 The Cosmological argument

Premise 1- Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Premise 2- The Universe had a beginning

Conclusion 3--Therefore the universe had a cause


With regards to premise 1 there are only 3 options, either the universe is uncaused, self caused, or caused by another.

We know the universe is here, or we would not be able to even ask the question, so number 1 is ruled out. Now the universe can not be self caused because something that does not exist can not bring itself into existence. So this leaves the only option available, which means the universe was caused by another,

So Premise -1 Everything that has a beginning has a cause, has been defended

So what about premise 2, that the universe had a beginning? All astrophysicists agree that the space time universe came into being at a finite time in the past, a few evidences will suffice,

1 The Universe is expanding

The stars and galaxies are slowly pulling away from each other, this has been verified by radio telescopes looking at whats called the "Red shift" if the universe is expanding, then it follows if you were to go farther back in time or " role the film back" so to speak you would eventually hit a point where all space time and matter is a finite point and could not be pushed back anymore, this demonstrates it could not be expanding forever, but must have had a start.

Number 2

The 2nd law of thermo dynamics is another strong evidence that the universe can not be eternal, this law says that the amount of heat/energy will eventually run down. For example, if you were to come in and see a cup of coffee on the table and touched it, and it was warm, you would know it was not that old, but if the coffee was cold, you would not know when it was made, this is analogous to the universe, the fact we still have energy sch as stars, planets giving off heat, electromagnetic radiation, this shows that the universe is not infinitely old, for if it was, the universe would have run out of usable energy long ago, so if the universe is running down, it MUST have been wound up.

We know the universe came into being from nothing, here is some quotes from modern cosmologists regarding the beginning of the universe

1- The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

2-"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

3-"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan

I could go on and on, my point is to claim that the universe popped into existence from nothing without a cause is irrational and violates basic principles of science, such as the law of causality. So I ask you, how is it that your worldview, that there is no Creator, give a better explanation of how the universe came to be?



This should suffice to defend that the universe had a beginning, if not let me know and I will give you a few more.

SO since we have established the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause, this argument demonstrates God exists! But it also shows a particular God exists. Pantheism is what the new age and Hindus believe, but the problem with this, is they believe that all is one, and God is in the world and the material universe is God. This however fails, because we demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, thus this would mean there god would not be eternal, but need a beginning and therefore would need a creator.

Because the space time universe had a beginning we know the Creator must be

1-Immaterial because he created matter

2--Non spatial because He existed before He created space

3- Non Temporal because he is outside of time

4-- All powerful because He created something from Nothing

5--Personal because he did not have to create but Chose to

6--Infinite wisdom based on the design in the universe and in living biological systems

7--immutable or unchanging because He IS EXISTENCE and everything else has existence

these Characteristics fit those of the God of the Bible, a Theistic personal God.

Age of The Earth Debate

http://cdn.answersingenesis.com/audio/archive/special-webcast/lislerossdebate.mp3

CLICK HERE

This Debate took place in 2005

Dr. Jason Lisle from Answers In Genesis debates Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons to believe. Both of these men are Christians, and both believe in the inspiration of the Bible.

The battle is really over hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. I as many people who follow this blog know that I am a committed believer in the Young Earth Creationist position. I do not divide on this issue with my brothers and it is of course, not a salvational issue.

However just because it is not an essential to the Christian faith, that does not mean it is not important. As said earlier the debate is over consistent hermeneutics.

The young earth position believes that God created the universe in 6 24 hour days and later there was a global world wide flood.

Progressive Creation is the view that the days in Genesis are long periods of time, big bang cosmology and reject that the flood was worldwide but only local.

For those not familiar with this "in house debate", this will be a good introduction to the debate, for more I suggest you go to www.answersingenesis.org and www.creation.com

The Case Against Atheism

Dr. Craig shows why several of the arguments for atheism absolutely fail philosophically!

Mormonism vs Christianity

http://www.bringyou.to/WalterMartinVanHaleDebate.mp3

CLICK HERE

Van Hale vs Walter Martin

Classic debate between outspoken Mormon apologist and one of the greatest defenders of the orthodox Christian faith of our time come together for a face to face dialog in this classic debate!

Is Intelligent Design A Viable Theory?

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/craig-ayala-debate.mp3

CLICK HERE

Be sure to visit http://www.apologetics315.blogspot.com/

Intelligent Design: Is it Viable? A debate between Dr. Francisco J. Ayala and Dr. William Lane Craig. Moderated by Dr. Bradley Monton. The debate occurred on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7 p.m. EST at Indiana University Auditorium.

To my knowledge Dr. Craig has never debated on the topic of biology before, this is an enjoyable debate and I hope Dr. Craig will take debates like this more in the future

Dr. Peter Kreeft vs Dr. Michael Tooley Is God Dead?

These are two very well known Philosophers. Dr. Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher at Boston College and Dr. Tooley teaches philosophy in Colorado, enjoy!

Greg Koukl vs Deepak Chopra

Is Christianity just a blind leap in the dark? Can we as Christians offer a defensible position as to why we believe that the God of the Bible is the one who spoke the universe into existence? This video will touch on issues such as history and truth an whether or not it can be known, enjoy!

http://www.savevid.com/video/conversation-between-richard-dawkins-and-john-lennox.html

CLICK HERE

Very Good debate between Dr. John Lennox and Dr. Richard Dawkins on the topic of Christianity and Atheism

Did Jesus Ever Exist?

Dr. Bart Ehrman is a outspoken Agnostic and textual critic of the New Testament. Here is an interview with him showing up on a well known Atheists radio show and refutes the Atheist position that Jesus never existed.. this is Classic!

Why Apologetics?

In this broadcast, H.C. Felder interviews Dr. Norman Geisler who explains apologetics and deals with some of the most difficult questions raised against Christianity.

Visit H.C. Felders website at www.givingananswer.org

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM11PachwYA&feature=player_embedded

CLICK HERE

Mary Jo Sharp of "Confident Christianity" debates Ehteshaam Gulam of "Answering Christian Claims" on one of the central areas of disagreement between Christians and Muslims: Jesus death by crucifixion.

Euthanasia

The word Euthanasia means "good death". As I watched this program to be perfectly honest, I don't think I have felt so uneasy and uncomfortable in a long time.

There are different types of Euthanasia such as passive, aggressive, voluntary and others. In the next week or so I am going to write some thoughts on this particular program and Euthanasia in general.

I wanted to post this video before I post my thoughts so people can see the video first and digest it.

WARNING VERY MATURE CONTENT!!

Do not watch this if you are not prepared to go on a emotional roller coaster which ends in this man taking his own life on camera. This is not a movie and not pretend, it is the real life documentary of this Man and his family, so please be warned before you watch.

John Loftus vs Paul Manata

All I can say is buckle up and hang on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr. Peter Kreeft

Is Anything Really Right or Wrong? from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

Is Anything Really Right or Wrong?
Peter Kreeft
University of California, Santa Barbara
9 February 1998

www.veritas.org

The Problem Of Evil

The Existence of Evil and the Problem of God from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

The Existence of Evil and the Problem of God
Alvin Plantinga, Richard Gale Ph.D.
University of Tennessee
31 December 2008

A conversation with Drs. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Gale on the topic “The Existence of Evil and the Problem of God.” This conversation is followed by a question and answer session with the audience

www.veritas.org

No Condemnation For Those In Christ

Romans 8:1-17


1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,

7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--

13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

17 and if children, (AH)heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

J.P. Holding

Very good show refuting the "Jesus Myth". I suggest his book, "Shattering The Christ Myth" To help you refute these stale old arguments!

Nicene Creed

Modern Wording

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

Does The Bible Teach The Trinity?

IS God A Trinity or A Single Individual?

Brant Bosserman Representing the Trinity
vs Sean Finnegan Representing Unitarianism

Many people have misunderstandings when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. I have stated else where that many cults and false religons have arose because of this misunderstanding.

Many times the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons show up on the door steps, many Christians have no idea how to respond to the attacks on the Trinity. This debate will show you how to defend the attacks on the Trinity and hopefully make you want to dig in the scriptures and be equipped and ready next time a opportunity comes your way. As always comments and questions are welcome!

Does The Bible Teach The Trinity?

http://www.bringyou.to/FinneganBossermanTrinityDebate.mp3

Many people have misunderstandings when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. I have stated else where that many cults and false religons have arose because og this misunderstanding.

Many times the Jehovahs Witnesses show up on the door steps, many Christians have no idea how to respond to the attacks on the Trinity. This debate will show you how to defend the attacks on the Trinity and hopefully make you want to dig in the scriptures and be equipped and ready next time a oppurtunity comes your way. As always comments and questions are welcome!

Is Jesus God?

Rick sent in a question which I answered in the comments section, I thought I would reproduce the answer here on the blogs main post so those who do not check the comments would be able to read the answer. This is a question that is asked a lot and we need to be able to answer this as Christians, feel free to leave comments or questions!


Rick said

How is it that the Scriptures tell us that no man has seen God at any time (John 1:18) and yet men saw Jesus? I'm confused about this. How can I explain this to someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is God?


MY Response

Rick,

Great question, I would recommend that you get a couple of books that will help you out with "Bible Difficulties". The first book I would recommend to you is called "The Big Of Bible Difficulties". The Second one is Dr. Gleason Archers book " Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties" and lastly Dr. Walt Kaisers book "Hard Sayings Of The Bible". Also on my blog I have a section on the right called "Bible Difficulties" which will take you to carm.org and there Matt Slick has hundreds of them for free for you to look at.

OK with that being said let me answer your question.

This is whats going on. Jesus has 2 natures, one human and one Divine. This in theology is called the Hypo-static union. Jesus was fully God, and Jesus was also fully man. So when one asks a question about Jesus, you really need to ask the question twice. Yes men saw Jesus in his humanity, but no one has seen nor can see God in his full essence. For One God is Immaterial which means he can not be composed of parts, thus if Jesus was fully divine in his man hood he would be composed of parts and be a material being. But we are told God is Spirit in John 4:24, and that a Spirit does not have flesh and bone, Luke 24:39.

This would also take away from Gods other attributes such as omnipresence ( Every where at the same time).

So the way this is answered is that Jesus in one person who has 2 natures, fully human and fully God, thus those who saw Jesus only saw his humanity, not his divinity. If you are still unclear let me know and I will see if I can expound on it. Consider the following

JESUS' DIVINE NATURE:

Uncaused

Unchanging

Knowledge is INFINITE

Necessary Being

All-Powerful

Simple Being {Not composed of parts}

INDEPENDENT


JESUS' HUMAN NATURE:

Caused

Changing

Knowledge IS finite

Limited Power

Composed Being

Dependent

Debating The Doctrine of The Trinity Part 1

The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to Christianity. Unfortunately this is one of the most understood teachings in the Bible. Many cults have sprung from a misunderstanding of what the Trinity is. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims all have a major misunderstanding of what the Doctrine of the Trinity is.

The Bible is clear that there is only one God, consider these verses;

Isaiah 43:10 You are aMy witnesses,” declares the Lord,

“And My servant whom I have chosen,

So that you may know and believe Me

And understand that I am He.

Before Me there was no God formed,

And there will be none after Me.


Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last,

And there is no God besides Me.


Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;

Besides Me there is no God.


There numerous verses that teaches Monotheism, the belief that there is one God. Unfortunately many Christians do not know how to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and will look for one or two verses which mention all three persons of the Godhead. However the doctrine of the Trinity is derived at through a systematic approach looking at numerous scriptures. We are told there is one God, but we also are told that Jesus is called God (John 5:18, John 28:20) We are told that the Holy Spirit is also called God ( Acts5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 2:11) and there is much more that can be said. I would suggest that as Christians we learn what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and how we can defend it against skeptics, and cultists!

Debating The Doctrine of The Trinity Part 2

Does God Exist?

Does God Exist? Slick vs Tabash at Boise State University from Lloyd Lowe II on Vimeo.

Matt Slick from CARM.ORG debates Atheist and Lawyer Dr. Eddie Tabash

Amazing Story Of A Botched Abortion

Amazing story of a young lady who survived one of the most horrific methods of abortion there is, the saline abortion method. Her story demonstrates the importance for standing up for life. We must all stand up and do our part to fight against the evils of abortion.

St. Thomas Aquinas On The Metaphysical Nature Of Angels

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/10_aquinas-angels.htm

CLICK HERE

Catholic Philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft explains St. Thomas Aquinas views on Angels and how one should understand the metaphysical nature of Angels, very good lecture!

Tim Tebow Pro-life Commercial

Funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant want to silent any and all opposing views.

Does God Exist?

http://ia341039.us.archive.org/3/items/DoesGodExistMattSlickDerekSansoneTalkItOver/Show65Sansone-slickDebate40.mp3

CLICK HERE

Atheist Derick Sanstone debates Christian Apologist Matt Slick on whether God exists or not. This is more of a dialog then it is a formal debate, enjoy! and as always comments are welcome

Anthropic Principle

This video explores one of the most powerful arguments there is for an intelligent designer! Thomas Aquinas argument from efficient cause argument demonstrates Gods existence, the anthropic principle and other teleological arguments are arguing for the Creators intelligence.

Dr. Martin Luther King

Praise God in his grace for raising a man like Dr. King up and using him to change American history. In the Biblical world view all men and women are made in the image of God. Because we are all descendants of Adam and Eve there is no basis for racism other than ignorance. I really do thank God for raising men like Dr.King up who was bold, unashamed and stood on biblical principles.

Christian Philosopher Dr. Paul Copan

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/CWS/paulcopanGodasthebestexplaination.mp3

Dr. Copan gives reasons as to why God makes sense of the world we see around us and why Theism is a much better explanation than any other worldview, feel free to leave comments!

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Shabir Ally Vs Mike Licona

This is a great debate between two very intelligent and able apologists. Dr. Mike Licona is a sought after Christian Apologist and Mr. Shabir Ally is a Muslim Apologist who frequently debates and gives lectures defending Islam. The resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of our faith, and if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity falls. In Fact the Bible tells us

"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins". And furthermore, he said, "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished if Christ has not been raised from the dead" I Corinthians 15:12-20. Paul, therefore, placed supreme emphasis on the resurrection of Christ.


I highly recommend the website www.answeringmuslims.com for great resources and information how to reach are Muslim friends

Problem Of Evil

http://ankerberg.com/Articles/practical-christianity/upside-down/bad-things.htm

CLICK HERE

In light of the tragedy yesterday in Haiti Dr. John Ankerberg has set up a page with several articles and a great dialog between Christian philosopher Dr. Norman Geisler and Jewish Rabbi Harold Kushner who represents finite godism on why there is evil and suffering in the world.

How To Expose Bad Arguments

I am going to break down this video and point out some logical fallacies made.

A logical fallacy Clearly defined is a error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes


The first 1:30


Here the argument is made that homosexuals should have the same rights as other Americans and if they are denied marriage then the discrimination is comparable to that of the 1960s and even earlier where black people were not given basic human rights.

Begging The Question

This is where one assumes what it is they are trying to prove. The reason the opposition is even having a debate is over whether being gay is a choice or whether one is born that way biologically. Whoopi starts from the hidden premise that gays are born that way, without addressing the question, are they born that way?


This argument is fallacious because being Black or White is not a choice, a person can not change who they are biologically because it is intrinsic to their human nature. So here they have confused a person’s essence with ones function. A persons behavior is not always a direct result of there nature. For example, some people shoplift, but shoplifting is not intrinsic to a person’s nature, but is an example of how they have used there free will to do a bad act which is a function of there free will.

Another point to be made is that the scientific evidence is far from conclusive that a person is born gay. Of course pursuing the same sex is not against the law, but trying to redefine marriage by marrying the same sex is.

Secondly gays have the same rights as everyone else; they are allowed to get married, just not to the same sex.



1:30-2:00

Appeal To Pity

An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

Nobody on the other side of the debate believes that gays should be lynched or shot in the street; this is Whoopi at her best trying to cloud the argument by appealing to emotions.

What about a Father that wants to marry his daughter who is over the age of 18 and is still married to his wife, should he be allowed? If not why not, who are we to discriminate? If the argument is that we should legalize certain behaviors because people should not be discriminated against, then where do you draw the line? Eventually unless you want complete chaos, then the man that wants to marry his goat is going to be discriminated against, the question is what is best for society as a whole, not the particular individual whose behavior will have an adverse effect on society.



3:00

reductio ad absurdum

1. (Philosophy / Logic) a method of disproving a proposition by showing that its inevitable consequences would be absurd


This applies when Whoopi states that “If you do not approve of gay marriage, then do not marry a gay person”.

I wonder what Whoopi would say in the 1800s to a slave owner who told her that he was doing nothing wrong by owning slaves and she should keep her nose out of it, after all, if you don’t like slavery don’t own a slave!

Same thing for drugs or prostitution, who are we to try and outlaw prostitution, if you don’t like it, don’t get a prostitute.

This type of logic is infantile at best. Again as a society we have a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the people.


4:20

Red Herring
Explanation
The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.
When did somebody bring in religion other than Whoopi? One does not need religion or the bible to demonstrate that homosexuality is bad for society and will have negative affects on the society as a whole. Here I will give a few stats from Dr. Frank Turek and Dr. Norman Geislers book “Legislating Morality”


On page 132 of their book they have a chart in which they show statistics taken from Omega Study Results, a study comparing obituaries of 6,737 homosexuals to a sample of heterosexuals, the results speak for themselves ( Note LTSP refers to long term sexual partner)



Married men
The average live to be 75
Percent living past 65 80%

Single or Divorced Men
Average age 57

32% Percentage living past 65

Homosexual Men
Without Aids

Average age 42 and only 9% live past 65

Homosexual Men
Without Aids Average age 41
With an LTSP 7% live past 65

Homosexual Men
With Aids an LTSP Average age 39 Less than 2% make it past 65

The source is Paul Cameron PhD, William Playfair, M.D., and Stephen Wellum, The longevity of Homosexuals: Before and after the aids epidemic,” The Omega Journal of Death and Dying 29:3 1994 249-272


The stats speak for themselves; one does not need to bring in religion or the Bible to demonstrate that homosexual behavior is bad for society.



This brings me to another point. Homosexuality has certainly not been shown to be something biological but a choice. However, let’s say a person is born with certain homosexual tendencies why would that be any kind of argument to promote homosexual relationships? What about those born with a propensity to violence, does the cop let the wife beater off because it was in his genes and he just can’t help it? How bout the person born with a propensity to abuse alcohol, should he be let off if he gets caught driving drunk, after all he was born with the bent towards alcoholism?

Of course not, this in called the Naturalistic Fallacy, that is it feels natural or normal it must be morally acceptable, the reasons shown above demonstrate that even if a person was born as a homosexual ( which the scientific evidence does not support) that still would not be a reason to promote same sex behavior and certainly not marriage.


4:36 -5:00

Begging The Question


Whoopi and her co-host again begs the question, the abortion debate is centered around whether the baby in the womb is a human and if so, those who are pro-life say then it is not the woman’s right to kill the baby. Whoopi doesn’t address the argument as to whether the baby is a separate human in the womb and jumps right to her conclusion that a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body, but again that is the debate, is it her body? If the baby in the womb is a separate person, then it’s not her body but the body of a separate human that she wants to eliminate and outside the womb there is a term for this, we call it murder.


5:45

Whoopi brings in the church and state argument, but as shown above one does not need to bring in the bible nor religion to demonstrate homosexuality is harmful to society, and just as we do not promote drugs and other activities that will devastate a society, neither should we promote sexual behavior that also has bad effects on society. I just showed the stats of the health of those who participate in this, there is so much more on how children are affected without a mom and dad growing up.


7:00

Whoopi is right, this issue has many ramifications to come and she should pay attention to the research done and educate herself before arguing from nothing more than “outrage”.


7:20

Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.


She again confuses a person’s essence with a persons function. Being blond or having white skin is not a choice; neither does it deal with moral choices, sexual behavior does.

Feel free to leave comments

Answers in Genesis

By Werner Gitt In The Beginning Was Information (Physics of Information Laws)

Dr Gitt demonstrates why information always demands an informer, that either matter emerged from mind or mind emerged from matter with no directing processes other than natural laws. When we test this we never see information arising without an informer, neither do we see specified complexity coming together by chance and random processes. Dr. Gitt explains why information is powerful evidence for a Creator.




PSALM 33

Let all the earth fear the LORD,
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood forth.

Dr. Phil Fernandes vs Dr. Eddie Tabash

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/fernandes-tabash-debate.mp3

CLICK HERE!!

Dr. Phil Fernandes is head the the Institute for Biblical defense and has his PhD in philosophy.

Dr. Fernandes has debated many of the top Atheists today and is a frequent speaker at churches and apologetic conferences. You can visit his website at http://www.biblicaldefense.org/

Dr Tabash is a lawyer and well known Atheist, he has engaged some of the top christian apologists in formal debates including Dr. William Lane Craig.

Is God Dead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNZHVdD0ocM

CLICK HERE

Is God Dead?

Dr. Ravi Zacharias argues for the existence of God and why Theism makes sense of the world we see, from creation to the problem of evil and ethics. Hope you enjoy and feel free to leave comments!

Dr. James White vs Mr. Greg Stafford

http://www.cunninham.ca/debates/Stafford%20vs%20White%20Is%20Jesus%20God%20or%20a%20god.mp3

Dr. James White debates Jehovah's Witness Mr. Greg Stafford, I think Dr. White did a great job in this debate and hopefully you will find this debate enjoyable, comments welcome!

Age Of The Earth Debate

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/great-debate/great-debate

CLICK HERE

Mr. Ken Ham and Dr. Jason Lisle from Answers In Genesis debate Old earth Creationists

Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Walt Kaiser. This was a very good debate, however I wish Dr. John Ankerberg would stick to moderating instead of jumping in and cutting Ken Ham and Jason Lisle off.

It will become very apparent exactly whose side Dr. Ankerberg is on and I feel that as one who should be moderating the debate, he should not continuously jump in. Dr.s Ross and Kaiser are very smart men who do not need help.

Other than that I thought the debate was good and informative and I will let the viewers make up their own mind, enjoy and feel free to leave comments!

Why Origins Matter

Dr. Parker is a speaker with Answers in Genesis. Dr. Parker is a young earth creationist as I am, thus he will be arguing why the theory of evolution fails as a scientific theory. There are many views of creation and are many sincere Christians who believe in the Big bang and millions of years while still rejecting biological evolution. While I certainly do not divide with my brothers in Christ on this topic, I do believe it is an important issue.

Creation Ministries International

Creation Ministries International is one of the top organizations that is dedicated to defending the Young Earth Creationist view. You can visit there website at www.creation.com

Do Christians Just Believe In One More God Then Atheists?

This piece is from my good friend Mr. Lewis Moore, feel free to leave comments!



When people say that there are other gods we would consider silly, they tend to forget that it would be silly to call such a thing god.

I have in mind here the common tactic of trying to make belief in the Christian God seem silly, by pointing at silly gods. Mythological or other fictional (FSM, for example) gods are the primary examples, but surely, given what the word "God" means in the Christian tradition (the ultimate, infinite reality and source of all existence, a being ... See More Containing all perfections etc.) to point at an anthropomorphism, or even worse, a lob of pasta, is to commit an inexcusable error.

"God" is not merely a title, its meaning is largely derived from its applicability. That is, it denotes a being of a certain nature, and is only applicable to a being of that nature. To treat a mythological use of "god" and the Christian use of "God" as if they were the same is equivocation at best, dishonest and rude at worst, and a sure sign of ignorance if we give the skeptic the benefit of the doubt.

So, why do I say it would be silly to call such a thing god? Well, for the same reason it would be silly to call a marble a boat. To call a thing a boat is to attribute to it a certain nature: namely that of being a vehicle of a general shape by which people may travel on water. A marble is hardly such an entity and it would be absurd to attribute such a nature to it. Likewise, to call a thing "God" is to attribute to it a certain transcendent, necessary, infinite (in a less mathematical sense), non-spatial, (in most cases) non-temporal, and ultimate nature. To give the title to an entity which is anthropomorphic, contingent, finite, spatial, temporal, and derivative is, indeed, silly

Can Man Live Without God?

Dr. Ravi Zacharias gives this lecture in Singapore

Ravi Zacharias Answers Questions From College Students

Dr. Zacharias answers the question as to why one should trust that the Bible is the word of God, and how one can know whether Christianity is true or not

Origins of Life Debate

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/origins-of-life-debate.mp3
CLICK HERE

On November 30, 2009, Stephen Meyer & Richard Sternberg debated Donald Prothero & Michael Shermer on the topic: Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?

Thanks to www.apologetics315.blogspot.com

Was Jesus A Myth? Part 1

Dr. James White debates Atheist Dan Barker on the topic of whether Christianity is a religion that is a copy cat of other religions. This is an argument that has been used over and over despite the fact it has been shown to be false over and over again. Watch this debate to learn how to respond to those who bring this objection up!

Was Jesus A Myth? Part 2

Dr. Ben Whitherington

Are the Gospel accounts contradictory and therefore unreliable?

This is a charge that come up many times. Dr. Whitherington gives a sound explanation as to why there are difference's in the gospel. If the gospel accounts all read the same, the skeptic would claim that there was tampering with the texts and they all copied from one another, kind of like if you were a teacher and two students turned in a paper and they were 99% identical you would conclude there was cheating.

However the fact that there are difference's within the gospel argue for its reliability and authenticity. For some good books dealing with "Bible Contradictions" I would highly recommend Dr. Norman Geisler's book called "When Critics Ask". Next Dr. Gleason Archers book of bible difficulties, and lastly "Hard Sayings of The Bible" by Dr. Walt Kaiser

Monkey Business

Are there gaps in the theory of evolution that undermine its credibility? What should we make of "intelligent design"?

Peter Robinson speaks with Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Wells.

Classic Debate Between Dr. William Lane Craig vs Atheist Frank Zindler

A classic debate before nearly 8,000 people at Willow Creek Community Church between William Lane Craig and Frank R. Zindler. The subject of the debate: "Atheism vs. Christianity: Which Way Does the Evidence Point?"

Jehovah's Witness

This video exposes what many may not know about the JWs, hope you find this information useful!

Mormonism and Polygamy

Very good video talking about Mormonism and some of their beliefs dealing with their prophet and some of the teachings such as polygamy!

Tackling Tough Questions

Well known apologists Josh and his son Sean Mcdowell tackle the tough questions today from skeptics!

God the Son

Merry Christmas!!

Another Christmas is upon us. After doing much study over the past couple of years or so on the Jehovah Witnesses, I have learned a tremendous amount about our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.

When people ask questions about Jesus, for instance like the JW's, we must make sure we parse the question. For instance, if Jesus was God, then why did He did not know the hour of His own coming {Matt. 24:35-36}? This and other questions of this type are answered actually very easily and when you understand this concept MUCH confusion disappears!

In John 1:1 we are told: "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD" and then in John 1:14 we read: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us".

Jesus has 2 natures: one is 100% Human, the other 100% Divine. Many think that Jesus stopped being God when He came to earth, but this is false. Instead of "subtraction", think of it as "addition " Jesus ADDED a human nature to Himself. In fact we are told in

Philippians 2:6-8 "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

The Greek word here for "emptied" means that Christ laid aside His divine attributes and chose not to use them at certain times; however, there are times when He does use them. For instance, in Matthew 12:25 we read: "And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand." This is a example of Jesus demonstrating His omniscience {All- Knowing }. Another example is when Jesus is in the boat with the disciples. We read in Mark 4:38-40: "But Jesus was in the back of the boat, asleep on a cushion. So they woke him up and asked him, "Teacher, don't you care that we're going to die?" v-39--And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. -v--41--They became very much afraid and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?"

This is a great example of Jesus being omnipotent by calming the wind and the waves, yet He is in the boat sleeping. We know that God doesn't sleep, and man can not control nature, so what we see is Christ's dual natures.

This is how you answer the question: did Jesus know all things? In His human nature "no", but in His divine nature "YES"! Consider the following when you are asked a question about Jesus.

JESUS' DIVINE NATURE:

Uncaused

Unchanging

Knowledge is INFINITE

Necessary Being

All-Powerful

Simple Being {Not composed of parts}

INDEPENDENT


JESUS' HUMAN NATURE:

Caused

Changing

Knowledge IS finite

Limited Power

Composed Being

Dependent


This hopefully will help clear up much of the confusion. Let us sit in awe and wonder of our amazing and great God as it was Him and Him ALONE who sacrificed His Son, the Second Person of the Trinity so that we may live!!!

Away In A Manger

Beautiful song full of meaning. We should never lose the wonder of the incarnation and the marvelous love bestowed on us by our Lord. Jesus Christ the 2nd person of the Trinity, God the Son took on a human nature and took the punishment for our sin so that we can be reconciled to God! How marvelous, how wonderful that our God has done this. Be sure this season to be sure to share the Gospel, the good news of Christmas. Pray that God will put someone in your path that you can share with and be bold!

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Well known Atheist and outspoken critic of Christianity was recently asked why he would not debate arguably the best Christian apologist today. As you will see Dawkins gives a LAME answer and in the process is exposed. Why is he willing to debate a Pastor or a Bishop, but will not debate a trained philosopher and apologist? Because he would get demolished and he knows it!

Dr. Walter Martin

Is there salvation outside of Jesus? Dr. Martin answers this question and others!

Charlie Brown Gets It!!

To bad we do not have shows like this anymore during Christmas time reminding us of what Christmas is about, the need for a Saviour

Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/CWS/robbowmanjwsandJesusChrist.mp3

CLICK HERE

Very good lecture on what the JWs believe about Jesus so when they come to your door you know how to respond

Steven Curtis Chapman

Romans 6:14-19

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.