Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 17 results found
Yes, the fine-tuning of the universe for life is highly unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time, right? Here's why this objection to the fine-tuning argument doesn't work.
Many evolutionary naturalists attempt to ground morality in naturalistic evolution. This is fraught with serious difficulties that form an insurmountable case against evolution as the foundation of morality.
Many people think all religions are equally true, but this isn't possible. Here's why.
Here’s a challenge I received: No-one can “validate” his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can “invalidate” any other religion. I believe in some type of god/gods, but I choose not to associate that belief with any specific religious teachings, because I've never felt qualified to refute the equally unprovable beliefs of other cultures. You can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be “right” or “wrong” when it’s all based on conjecture.
Is belief in God through natural revelation enough to be saved? COMMENTS Read more posts
A while back, I met with a local pastor to talk about apologetics—the defense of the Christian faith. During our friendly discussion, we got on to the subject of the nature of truth, at which time I made a case for the correspondence theory of truth. This particular pastor subscribed to a postmodern view of truth—that there is no objective truth and that truth is a social construction based on linguistic practices.
A common question that comes up after I give my talk titled Why I Am Not an Evolutionist is, “If there are so many good scientific arguments against evolution, why is it so widely believed?” I recently came across an article by Dr. William Lane Craig where he responds to this exact question. In his brilliant response he makes two key observations, which I will highlight here.