Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 172 results found
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.
In the PragerU video “Where Do Good and Evil Come From?” philosopher Peter Kreeft explains why objective morality can only come from a source higher than anything in the natural world. Enjoy! (HT: Joe Carter)
Reasonable Faith has a new apologetics video on Leibniz’s contingency argument for the existence of God. Enjoy!
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.
Kenneth Keathley says of the following video:
If we can convince people our value comes not from the abilities we’re expressing at a particular moment in time but from the kind of being we are...then a case for universal intrinsic human value can be made.
Why isn’t God guilty of “sinning by omission” when He doesn’t prevent something bad from happening? COMMENTS Read more posts
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.
More disturbing than the fact that a new definition of marriage is now the law of the land is the way in which this transformation was accomplished. The actions of the Court do not respect the Constitution as a document containing principles the justices are obliged to recognize and conform their decisions to.