Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 31 results found
Parents do have an obligation to their children, so it seems that God would have an obligation to His creation. The two scenarios do not have the same moral obligations. God is not obliged to anyone. Human beings are under God, and God communicates duties that relate to His perfections and role as King of the Universe.
I was reading a book recently that asked the question, “Do we have free will? If you don’t think we do, please turn to page 3.” When you turn to page 3, it says, “Gotcha.” Point being, we all have a basic awareness that we are making decisions that are ours, and we have at least some significant measure of freedom.
When scientists claim that any intelligent design inference is an example of God of the Gaps, they are presuming that there actually is an explanation gap, that is, there simply is no explanation for the phenomena in question. The “God of the Gaps” complaint comes up when theists suggest that design is a better explanation than a naturalistic one in certain areas of science, particularly the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of life from simple to complex over time.
In July 1995, Time Magazine made a stunning announcement. In an extensive article on the mind they wrote, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show” (July 17, 1995, p. 52). In other words, there is no soul.
Basic math is another thing that can't be proven. It's known by intuition. Someone once took me to task on this, suggesting he could scientifically prove two plus two equals four. He took two apples and put them together with two more apples to give a total of four. That was his "scientific" proof. The math wasn't proven in this case, though; it was simply exemplified with different tokens. A token is some physical representation--a sound, a mark of ink on a piece of paper, an object--that represents the unseen type, in this case, a number. Let me illustrate.
Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It's not just having thoughts about God. Rather, it's coming to conclusions about God and His world based on revelation, observation, and careful thinking.
It doesn’t seem to make sense to say you once were a sperm or an egg. Does it make sense, though, to talk about yourself before you were born? Did you turn in your mother’s womb or kick when you were startled by a loud noise? Did you suck your thumb? Were those your experiences or someone else’s? If you were once the unborn child your mother carried, then you have to accept an undeniable truth: killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed you.
Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this "sibling rivalry" because they are like children fighting.
Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that conservative Christian scholars have a point of view, like everyone else. The Christian's bias, though, doesn't inform his conclusions the same way biases inform the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar and liberal theologians.
This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”