William Lane Craig

Divine Feet ~ Philosophical Demarcations

Published by Papa Giorgio

Atheists reject evidence as illusory…

Why?

Because they “have to.”

I put these two ideas from separate fields of study together. Why I didn’t before is a mystery… but like with any field of study, you can go over the same topic again-and-again — you continue to learn. The first example come from biology and the natural sciences. Here are three examples of the beginning of my thinking:

  • “The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.” ~ Richard Dawkins in the Natural History Magazine;
  • “So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realize that it is an illusion.” ~ New Scientist Magazine (h/t, Uncommon Dissent)
  • “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” ~ Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, pp. 1, and 21.
  • “We can’t make sense of an organ like the eye without considering it to have a function, or a purpose – not in a mystical, teleological sense, but in the sense of an illusion of engineering. That illusion, we now know, is a consequence of Darwin’s process of natural selection. Everyone agrees that the eye is a remarkable bit of natural “engineering,” and that may now be explained as a product of natural selection rather than as the handiwork of a cosmic eye-designer or as a massive coincidence in tissue formation.” ~ Steven Pinker, via Edge’s “Is Science Killing the Soul.”

The important point here is that the Judeo-Christian [theistic] view would posit that we (and nature) is designed, and would notice it in ourselves and in nature. The atheist MUST reject design as an illusion because their worldview demands that chance cobbled together what we see… so dumb luck needs to be seen as opposed to design.

Steven Pinker summation:

Pinker’s newer book, The Blank Slate, revised his views on free will, in that he no longer thinks it’s a necessary fiction. The chapter on “The Fear of Determinism” takes an explicitly deterministic stance, and usefully demonstrates the absurdity of contra-causal free will and why we shouldn’t worry about being fully caused creatures. However, Pinker remains conservative in not drawing any conclusions about how not having free will might affect our attitudes towards punishment, credit, and blame,; that is, he doesn’t explore the implications of determinism for ethical theory. This, despite the fact that in How the Mind Works he claimed that “ethical theory requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused” … We await further progress by Pinker. (Via Naturlism)

Daniel Dennett:

Dennett worries that there is good evidence that promulgating the idea that free will is an illusion undermines just that sense of responsibility many scientists and philosophers are worried about losing. Critics maintain that Dennett’s kind of free will, with its modest idea of “enough” responsibility, autonomy and control, is not really enough after all.

[….]

“It’s important because of the longstanding tradition that free will is a prerequisite for moral responsibility,” he says. “Our system of law and order, of punishment, and praise and blame, promise keeping, promise making, the law of contracts, criminal law – all of this depends on one notion or another of free will. And then you have neuroscientists, physicists and philosophers saying that ‘science has shown us that free will is an illusion’ and then not shrinking from the implication that our systems of law are built on foundations of sand.” (Via The Guardian)

Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Kruass, Christopher Hitchens:

Sam Harris:

Stephen Hawkings:

One of the most intriguing aspects mentioned by Ravi Zacharias of a lecture he attended entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate,” given by Stephen Hawking, who is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Isaac Newton’s chair, was this admission by Dr. Hawking’s, was Hawking’s admission that if “we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free.”[1] In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms? Michael Polyni mentions that this “reduction of the world to its atomic elements acting blindly in terms of equilibrations of forces,” a belief that has prevailed “since the birth of modern science, has made any sort of teleological view of the cosmos seem unscientific…. [to] the contemporary mind.”[2]

[1] Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 118, 119.

[2] Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning (Chicago, IL: Chicago university Press, 1977), 162.

The bottom line is that free-will, self, freedom to be above and distinguish between actions, is all an illusion.

Why?

BECUASE if free-will existed… then this would be an argument f-o-r theism. F-o-r God’s existence. Like the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institutes, Robert Jastrow’s description in his book of a disturbing reaction among his colleagues to the big-bang theory—irritation and anger.

Why, he asked, would scientists, who are supposed to pursue truth and not have an emotional investment in any evidence, be angered by the big-bang theory?

They had an aversion to the Big-Bang.

Because it argued F-O-R theism. F-O-R God’s existence.

Jastrow noted that many scientists do not want to acknowledge anything that may even suggest the existence of God. The big-bang theory, by positing a beginning of the universe, suggests a creator and therefore annoys many astronomers.

This anti-religious bias is hardly confined to astronomers.

As we see, the above persons in rejecting evidence of design in nature and consciousness, are doing so based on an aversion to “God evidence.” Another well-known philosopher John Searle notes this illusion as well:

All these people are misusing science and remaking it into “scientism.” AND, they are “not allowing a divine foot in the door,” as Dinesh D’Souza notes:

Scientism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you want to call it… it is still a metaphysical position as it assumes or presumes certain things about the entire universe.  D’Souza points this a priori commitment out:

Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith. Here is Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have [an] a priori commitment… a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 161 (emphasis added).

“Minds fit into an theistic world, not an atheistic one”

What are intentional states of consciousness? Are states of consciousness plausible on either a theistic or atheistic worldview? This clip shows the exchange between Dr William Lane Craig and Dr Alex Rosenberg on intentional states of consciousness in the world. On February 1st, 2013 at Purdue University, Dr Craig participated in a debate with Dr Rosenberg on the topic, “Is Faith In God Reasonable?” Over 5,000 people watched the event on the Purdue University campus along with tens of thousands streaming it live online from around the world.

For more on this, see my “quotefest” here: Evolution Cannot Account for: Logic, Reasoning, Love, Truth, or Justice

Arguing Against Self ~ “Choosing” Determinism

Published by Papa Giorgio

Video Description:

See many more critiques against “Physicalism” here.

In the fourth podcast critique of the Sam Harris interview of Jerry Coyne… free-will is ejected as merely an illusion. Dr. William Lane Craig notes that ALLL the previous talk of morals, one position [like atheism] being true/correct in contradistinction to another [like theism], justice, Islam being “bad,” and the like… are all negated by this last segment regarding free-will.

Even my previous upload, where Jerry Coyne was talking about “how science” should operate ends up having no meaning in his viewpoint.

Included in this upload ~ after Dr. Craig quickly points out the self-referential negating going on between these two ~ is a “Check-Mate” of sorts of Sam Harris’ premise in his book, The Moral Landscape. This took place between Dr. Craig and Dr. Harris, and can be found in full, here.

As usual, one should visit the source of these great refutations in the ministry of Reasonable Faith ~ http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Atheists Assume Non-Material “Beliefs” Every Day

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a detailing of the above in a book I recently read:

“There is no need for God,” Atkins declared. “Everything in the world can be understood without needing to evoke a God. You have to accept that’s one possible view to take about the world.”

“Sure, that’s possible,” Craig admitted. “But—”

[Interrupting] “Do you deny that science can account for everything?” challenged Atkins.

“Yes, I do deny that science can account for everything,” said Craig.

“So what can’t it account for?” demanded Atkins.

“I think that there are a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven, but that we’re all rational to accept,” Craig began.

[Interrupting] “Such as?”

“Let me list five,” Craig continued. “[First,] logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle. [Second,] metaphysical truths like there are other minds other than my own, or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven. [Third,] ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science that the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies. [Fourth,] aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven. And finally, most remarkably, would be science itself. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, since it is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points, A and B, but that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory!”

Feeling vindicated, Buckley peered over at Atkins and cracked, “So put that in your pipe and smoke it.”

Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 162-163.

Jesus Last Words on the Cross ~ A Supposed Contradiction Examined

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have been politely challenged by a person on one of my YouTube uploads. I responded to one challenge already. After responding to it I was challenged with another supposed contradiction in the Bible. I doubt highly the questioner is truly in search for truth in these matters as much as they are more concerned in a masochistic drive to circle the wagons around their unbelief. So I suggested two books for him to get to answer his own questions rather than ask me.

  1. The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation, by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe;
  2. and, the New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer.

However, after the following challenge I said he should read one book:

But… he pushed another “contradiction.” So I am responding to it. But I am not at this person’s beckon-call.

Here is the challenge:

The different gospels clearly contradict each other on Jesus’ last words on the cross.

Matthew 27:46: Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

(Verse 50 says he cried out again before dying, but no mention is made of spoken words.)

Luke 23:46: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.

John 19:30: It is finished

I then asked if he had seen Monty Python’s “Life of Brian.” He said “No.” I linked to the below video to make a point:

[I love the parts where they do not hear what Jesus is saying, and so substitute what they think He said: “Blessed are the Greeks,” for example.]

I respond:

Similarly, you seem to have an unrealistic view of the historical scene we know happened at Calvary. There were Roman soldiers keeping people back, gambling, talking, etc. Ambiant noises as well, horses, carts on a nearby road/trail, or the “clanging” of a blacksmith or shaking out of rugs, and the like. Likewise, people around the scene were crying, talking, some closer, others further away from the crosses.

  • An after thought: The skeptic seems to think that the crucifixion scene was in a sound proof room where the disciples were all the same distance from Jesus with a Dictaphone up to His mouth. What an untenable belief!

In fact, John mentions he was close to the Cross, probably hearing things the others didn’t:

John 19:25-27  “Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple He loved standing there, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.”

Combining the three accounts, we read:

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is to say, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’….Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice said , ‘Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:’ (notice the cry with a loud voice is separated from Jesus commending His spirit, probably quieter), then he said softly, ‘It is finished:’ and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

(Contender Ministries)

JUST like a police officer or insurance adjuster will do from multiple eyewitnesses to a vehicle accident. People who see the same incident — maybe from a similar viewing position or from different places [say on different corners] — have different/varying descriptions… of the same incident.

In-other-words, there is no contradiction.

IN FACT, if these descriptions were identical, I would question if they were written by different people. I would charge collusion, like two criminals getting their story straight before talking to a police officer.

He responds:

Yes, but some Christians including yourself claim that the Bible is perfect and has zero contradictions. Three people claim Jesus said three different things right before he died.

I respond:

It doesn’t have any real contradictions. I have written about inerrancy here. For instance, you have not shown a contradiction., Jesus said all those things before he dies, people just heard them and others did not. It is not a contradiction.

John heard His [Jesus’] last ~ QUIET ~ words (remember, he was closer);

…AND…

Matthew heard His [Jesus’] last ~ LOUD ~ words.

Again, you have not shown a contradiction that isn’t easily explained by the historical setting. Unless you reject my verse documenting John’s closeness to the Cross and accept the verses you are using as valid? A double standard?

You seems to not be distinguishing between what a contradiction is verses a difference:

First, it’s important to distinguish between contradiction and difference. Just because two passages are different, doesn’t mean they contradict each other. For example, Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself, while Acts 1:18 says that he fell to the ground and burst wide open. These are two different accounts of Judas’ death, but they are not formal contradictions. A contradiction would be one passages saying, “Judas hung himself and died” and another passage saying, “Judas didn’t hang himself; rather, he threw himself from cliff and splattered on the ground.”

In the Bible, it could be that he hung himself in a high tree, and then the rope snapped and he fell headlong and burst all over the ground. Or maybe his attempt at hanging himself didn’t work (Matthew 27 doesn’t actually say he died from hanging himself), and so he went and threw himself from a cliff, as recorded in Acts.

Or maybe there are other options. The point is, many apparent contradictions aren’t really formal contradictions at all. They’re simply different accounts, different perspectives, or different versions of the story…

(Relevant Magazine)

Some other thoughts on this are as follows. One I particularly like Youth Apologetics Training:

I would define someone’s last words as what they spoke during the last movements of their lives. The patriarch Jacob spoke many last words over his sons before he died (Gen 49). His long prophecy over his boys could all be considered his last words.

Even the idea of “last words” is being defined in a literal, wooden sense when more of an “idea” of last words is being presented. (Something, ironically, we are accused of, that is: being literal or taking the Bible as literal. Here we see the skeptic doing so, incorrectly I night add.) Or at least is an option that takes away a supposed contradiction. WIKI notes the definition:

  • Last words or final words are a person’s final articulated words said prior to death or as death approaches. (emphasis added)

Apologetic Press discusses these verses a bit:

On a regular basis, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and Bible critics write our offices at Apologetics Press. Some of the feedback we receive is simply to inform us how naïve Christians are for believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible, or how ignorant creationists are for disbelieving in macro-evolution. We also receive numerous questions from these non-believers. (Unfortunately, due to the volume of inquiries we receive, we are unable to answer all of them.) Recently, one Bible critic sent the following note:

You say the Bible does not contradict itself but I have found several contradictions in the Bible. For example, in John 10:30 Jesus says that he and his father are one then in John 14:28 he says his father is greater than he. Did he change his mind?

So what were Jesus’ last words? Well Matthew, Luke and John seem to have all heard something different. In Matthew 27:46,50 Jesus said my god my god why has thou forsaken me then died but in Luke 23:46 he claims Jesus said father unto thy hands I commit thy spirit then died and finally in John 19:30 he claims that Jesus said it is finished then died. Well which one is it? These are just a few of many. Why would someone say the Bible doesn’t contradict itself when if you have read the words in its pages it does not take a genius to see all the falsities within.

Consider how easily these questions can be answered simply by remembering two basic rules of interpretation.

First, supplementation is not equivalent to a contradiction. For example, suppose you tell a friend about your trip to Disney World. You mention that you went to Magic Kingdom on Monday. Later, you state that you went to Hollywood Studios on Monday. Have you lied? Are these two contradictory statements? Not necessarily. It could be that you visited both Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios on the same day. Similarly, the seven statements the gospel writers recorded that Jesus made from the cross (including the three aforementioned statements—Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:46; John 19:30) all supplement one another. Nothing is said about Jesus making only one of these statements. What’s more, silence does not negate supplementation. Simply because John wrote that our suffering Savior said, “‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30), does not mean that Jesus could not also have said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” after He had cried out, “It is finished,” and before His death (Luke 23:46). Nothing in John 19:30, Luke 23:46, or Matthew 27:46,50 is contradictory. We simply have three different statements that Jesus made at three different moments during His crucifixion….

Tim Stratton’s Apologetic Journey: Minimizing Atheism in the Church

Published by Papa Giorgio

A video letter to Reasonable Faith Ministries that is important:

Imagine being the youth pastor at your church, leading a Bible study for two years, only to have an elder’s son tell you that he’s decided to become an atheist. Tim Stratton was shocked. “Why would you believe that?” he exclaimed. The student responded, “I’ll tell you what. If you can answer just one of these questions, just one of these objections, I’ll stick around.” However, Tim was not equipped to answer any of the objections the young man had found reading the New Atheists.

Tim was shaken, but he realized that as a shepherd of God’s people, he needed to learn how to defend the sheep. That’s when he discovered the resources of Reasonable Faith. Tim says, “Wow! My life was transformed by the renewing of my mind. Now, I had reasons to believe!”

The Proper Evangelical Position on Same-Sex Marriage

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an important discussion because Dr. Craig points out the proclivity for principles of special rights that counter equal rights. This podcast from Reasonable Faith (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/) is a great addition to the conversation we ALL should be having.

AGAIN, William Lane Craig does an excellent duty in treading the conservative Evangelical ~ Constitutional viewpoint in discussing Same Sex Marriage.

One should see my post on Christians who are living a chaste life or a changed life because of Christ!

Hear Atheists Themselves on Evil and Absolutes [UPDATED!]

Published by Papa Giorgio

I wish to start out with an excerpt from a chapter in my book where I use two scholarly works that use Darwinian naturalism as a guide to their ethic:

  • Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 1997).
  • Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).

My incorporation of these works into my book (quote):

“Lest one think this line of thinking is insane, that is: sexual acts are something from our evolutionary past and advantageous; rape is said to not be a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success….. The first concept that one must understand is that these authors do not view nature alone as imposing a moral “oughtness” into the situation of survival of the fittest. They view rape, for instance, in its historical evolutionary context as neither right nor wrong ethically. Rape, is neither moral nor immoral vis-à-vis evolutionary lines of thought, even if ingrained in us from our evolutionary paths of survival. Did you catch that? Even if a rape occurs today, it is neither moral nor immoral, it is merely currently taboo. The biological, amoral, justification of rape is made often times as a survival mechanism bringing up the net “survival status” of a species, usually fraught with examples of homosexual worms, lesbian seagulls, and the like.”

(pp. 7-9 of  Roman-Epicurean-ism-Natural-Law-and-Homosexuality)

Now, hear from other atheist and evolutionary apologists themselves in regard to the matter:

Richard Dawkins

(h/t: TrueFreeThinker) – A Statement Made by an atheist at the Atheist and Agnostic Society:

Some atheists do believe in ethical absolutes, some don’t. My answer is a bit more complicated — I don’t believe that there are any axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion.

That is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so are ethics. So, why is Adolf Hitler wrong? Because he murdered millions, and his only justification, even if it were valid, was based on things which he should have known were factually wrong. Why is it wrong to do that? Because I said so. Unless you actually disagree with me — unless you want to say that Adolf Hitler was right — I’m not sure I have more to say.

[side note] You may also be aware that Richard Dawkins stated,

…I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point….

Stated during an interview with Larry Taunton, “Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist,” by Faith Magazine, Issue Number 18, December 2007 (copyright; 2007-2008)

Lewis Wolpert

From the video description:

Atheists Trying to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too on Morality. This video shows that when an atheist denies objective morality they also affirm moral good and evil without the thought of any contradiction or inconsistency on their part.

Dan Barker

This is from the video Description for the Dan Barker video below:

The atheist’s animal-level view of “morality” is completely skewed by dint of its lack of objectivity. In fact, the atheist makes up his own personal version of “morals” as he goes along, and this video provides an eye-opening example of this bizarre phenomenon of the atheist’s crippled psyche:

During this debate, the atheist stated that he believed rape was morally acceptable, then he actually stated that he would rape a little girl and then kill himself — you have just got to hear his psychotic words with your own ears to believe it!

He then stammered and stumbled through a series of ridiculously lame excuses for his shameful lack of any type of moral compass.

To the utter amazement of his opponent and all present in the audience, the gruesomely amoral atheist even goes so far as to actually crack a sick little joke on the subject of SERIAL CHILD-RAPE!

:::shudders:::

Meanwhile, the Christian in the video gracefully and heroically realizes the clearly objective moral values that unquestionably come to humanity by God’s grace, and yet are far beyond the lower animal’s and the atheist’s tenuous mental grasp. Be sure to keep watching until the very end so that you can hear the Christian’s final word — it’s a real knuckle-duster!

Atheist dogma™ not only fails to provide a stable platform for objective human morality for its adherent — it precludes him even the possibility. It’s this very intellectual inability to apprehend any objective moral values that leads such believers in atheist dogma™ as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Dahmer to commit their horrific atheistic atrocities.

Any believer in atheist dogma™, given sufficient power, would take the exact same course of action that Hitler did, without a moment’s hesitation.

Note as well that evolutionary naturalism has very dogmatic implication, IF — that is — the honest atheist/evolutionist follow the matter to their logical conclusions, via the ineffable Dr. Provine:

William Provine

Atheist and staunch evolutionist Dr. William Provine (who is often quoted by Richard Dawkins) admits what life has in stored if Darwinism is true. The quote comes from his debate here with Dr. Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University, April 30, 1994.