Search Results

If something cannot be tested, does that make it wrong? And if something cannot be tested, should it be dismissed as “pseudoscience”? Many skeptics (including many scientists) dismiss a theory called Intelligent Design for being "untestable" and therefore "pseudoscience." Whether or not those accusations are true is a debatable matter. But assuming the accusations are correct there is still a deeper and more important issue to consider. And that is, whether or not something is “scientific” or "testable" does not determine whether it is true or not. Many things which are not necessarily “scientific,” may in fact be true. Those who oppose Intelligent Design, often fail to appreciate this. To see this, consider the fact that scientists often invoke ideas and theories that are not testable and could be labelled "pseudoscience." For example, in the past century scientists have discovered that the universe’s fundamental constants, as found in the laws of physics, display an amazing degree of fine-tuning. This fine-tuning is so incredibly improbable that it cries out for explanation. Two common ways of explaining it are design (i.e. God) and chance. Those who espouse the chance hypothesis argue that our universe could just be one universe amongst an infinite number of universes. And given this vast ensemble, it's entirely possible that a universe like ours could exist by chance. But as George Ellis, one of the world’s leading cosmologists, points out, the existence of those other universes (i.e. multiverse) cannot be tested. He states, ...physicists and cosmologists are claiming to prove the existence of other expanding universe domains even though there is no chance of observing them, nor any possibility of testing their supposed nature except in the most tenuous, indirect way.... As a philosophical proposal, the multiverse idea is interesting and has considerable merit. The challenge facing cosmologists now is how to put on a sound basis the attempts to push science beyond the boundary where verification is possible — and what label to attach to the resultant theories. So, given that there is no way to test for the existence of all the other universes, they could be labelled "pseudoscience." Of course, that does not determine whether those other universes exist or not. It's important to realize that just because a theory cannot be tested, does not necessarily make it false. All of this relates back to Intelligent Design. Skeptics who dismiss Intelligent Design (ID) as “pseudo-scientific nonsense” often do so because, they claim, ID is not testable. Yet these same people frequently embrace the existence of other universes even though that idea is not testable. Given this, perhaps Intelligent Design should not be so easily and quickly dismissed. Learn More Short Blog: Intelligent Design Advocates Biased by Religion? Reference George Ellis, “Physics Ain’t What It Used to Be,” Nature 438, no. 7069 (December 2005): 739–40, https://doi.org/10.1038/438739a.

Does the reality of evil mean that God does not exist? The answer is no. Why? Because 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴. In fact, if God does not exist, then evil cannot exist. But if evil is real, then God must be real. How is this possible? Consider the following. Suffering and pain can exist apart from God, but these are not necessarily "evil." For example, when someone finishes running a marathon, they may be in pain, but that pain is not "evil." When we call certain suffering "evil," it implies a judgment about that suffering. This judgment is essentially that some things are 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦. This, in turn, entails that there is a way things 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦. Furthermore, the way people make this judgment shows that they do not believe it is just a matter of opinion. As such, it must be based in a reality outside of the human mind. So what other options are there? The physical world of air, rocks, trees, stars, etc. is an option. But since physical objects do not determine how anything should or should not be, the judgment cannot be based in the physical world. Therefore the "way things are supposed to be" must be based in a reality outside of the physical world. And it is this other reality which can be called "God." Dr. Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, indirectly acknowledges this point when he states that in an atheistic universe filled with "blind physical forces and genetic replication... there is... no evil and no good". In his book, 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘥𝘦𝘯, he makes this clear. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵, 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘭𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘩𝘺𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦… 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴, 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯, 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦, 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. Hence there is a certain irony behind those who reject God because of evil. The irony is that, far from disproving the existence of God, evil actually provides an excellent reason for concluding that 𝙂𝙤𝙙 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙨𝙩. Learn More Short Blog: Alvin Plantinga Solves "Logical Problem" of Evil Video (below): Evil Requires Trusting God's Goodness Video (below): Reconciling a Good God with the Reality of Evil References Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Reissued, A Phoenix Paperback (London: Phoenix, 2004), 133.

Bill Maher, in his mockumentary called Religulous, implies that the story of Jesus' life was borrowed from ancient Egyptian mythology. Maher belongs to a group of extreme skeptics known as “mythicists.” This group believes that Jesus never existed (i.e. the gospels are “myth”) and that his life was invented by borrowing motifs from other religions in the ancient world. Jon Sorensen is a former atheist who used to hold to the mythicist view. However, unlike many of his fellow mythicists, Sorensen decided to investigate the claims for himself. What he discovered shook up his entire view of Jesus and helped bring him back to the Christianity of his youth. One example of the poor scholarship he uncovered was the claim of alleged parallels between Jesus’ story and tales of the Egyptian god Horus. The lack of evidence for a real parallel between Jesus’ crucifixion and Horus’ crucifixion was characteristic of the many problematic claims he uncovered. In many of the books and on the websites that attempt to make this connection, it is often pointed out that there are several ancient depictions of Horus standing with his arms spread in cruciform. One can only answer this with a heartfelt “So what?” A depiction of a person standing with his arms spread is not unusual, nor is it evidence that the story of a crucified savior predates that of Jesus Christ. We do have extensive evidence from extra-biblical sources that the Romans around the time of Christ practiced crucifixion as a form of capital punishment. Not only that, but we have in the Bible actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. On the other hand, there is no historical evidence at all to suggest that the ancient Egyptians made use of this type of punishment. Learn More Short Blog: Buddhist Scholar Explains Why He Left Buddhism - Paul Williams Reference Jon Sorensen, “Cleaning Up the Horus Manure,” Catholic Answers, January 11, 2012, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/cleaning-up-the-horus-manure.

Morten Storm is a Danish citizen who converted to Islam and became involved with al-Qaeda. While in the terrorist organization, he gained the trust of some of the senior leadership including Anwar al-Awaki, a U.S. citizen who helped run al-Qaeda out of Yemen. Storm was so highly trusted by al-Awaki that he even ate in his home and helped him find a wife. But throughout this whole time, Storm hid two deep secrets. The first was that he was actually working with Western intelligence agencies. And the second was that his decision to work with those agencies had come about after he had deconverted from Islam. Furthermore, his decision to leave Islam had resulted from discovering contradictions in the Quran. In an interview, he described this experience as follows. I found a web-site... I think it’s called answering-islam.org ... I found hundreds and hundreds of contradictions... I started to... research some of the contradictions to see that maybe that web-site was more biased cause, you know, because maybe they had a Christian... agendas to spread Christianity... But anyway, I searched the contractions and you know, looked up the references in the Quran and hadiths and you know, they were all right, they were actually all true... and it just wiped away my faith. Learn More Short Blog: "Gospel of Barnabas" Supports Muslim View of Jesus? Reference Mark Stout, A Western Spy among Terrorists in Yemen, SpyCast, May 26, 2013, https://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/a-western-spy-among-terrorists-in-yemen/?fbclid=IwAR0BJa9FeP3ffP_ibtqeRZZZu_G_20cLSzW0OW-ClD0stt9C2FtS-Zgct6A. Timestamp: 24:35 - 26:12 Note that the website is blocked in some Muslim countries.

Father Zakaria Botros is an Egyptian Coptic priest who is best known for his critique of Islam (and defense of Christianity) on a television show that broadcasts throughout the Middle East and the world. Botros’ mastery of classical Arabic has allowed him to study the Quran and early Muslim texts (e.g. hadith) in great detail. Much to the chagrin of Islamic scholars, he presents his discoveries on his satellite TV channel - alfadytv. Unsurprisingly, his shows have created a great deal of controversy. One particular revelation involved an authentic hadith which instructed women to "breastfeed" grown men. To make matters worse, one of Islam's highest authorities issued a ruling legitimizing the practice. The website orthodoxytoday.org explains more. Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous -- and authentic -- hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, Abd al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact -- the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them. To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University -- Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution -- went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted. Learn More Short Blog: Muslim Girl Supernaturally Healed by Jesus - Gulshan Fatima Reference Raymond Ibrahim, “Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1,’” OrthodoxyToday.org, April 1, 2008, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Ibrahim-Islams-Public-Enemy-Number-One.php.

Those who reject a relationship with Jesus because they reject the idea of "absolute truth" are refuting themselves. For, if there is no absolute truth, then the claim that "there is no absolute truth," cannot be absolutely true itself. And if that statement is not absolutely true then absolute truth can exist. Just ask the man who says there is no absolute truth whether that statement itself is absolutely true. Learn More Short Blog: Is Christianity "Just True for You"?

"Allahu Akbar. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." These were the first words that Nabeel Qureshi’s father whispered into his ear, just after he was born. And as a Muslim in the Ahmadiyya tradition, they were also the words that he lived by. Nabeel writes, “Every day I recited countless prayers in Arabic, thanking Allah for another day upon waking, invoking his name before falling asleep.” As he grew up, Nabeel sought to spread his faith. By middle school, I had learned how to challenge Christians, whose theology I could break down just by asking questions... I boldly issued the call of Islam to anyone and everyone who would listen. But all of this began to change in Nabeel’s freshman year of university when he befriended a Christian student named David Wood. Wood was unlike other Christians in that he was both biblically literate and had a strong grasp of the evidence for both Christianity and Islam. We quickly became best friends, signing up for events together, going to classes together, and studying for exams together. All the while we argued about the historical foundations of Christianity. After three years of “arguing,” Nabeel became convinced that his understanding of Christianity and his arguments against the Bible were wrong. Then David challenged him to critically study Islam with the same skepticism that he had applied to Christianity. After learning the truth about the life of Muhammad he was “shocked” and he... began to lean on the Qur'an as my defense. But when I turned an eye there, that foundation crumbled just as quickly. I relied on its miraculous knowledge and perfect preservation as a sign that it was inspired by God, but both beliefs faltered. Eventually, Nabeel prayed that God, the true God, would reveal himself to him through visions and dreams. In the following months, God gave him one vision and three dreams, after which, Nabeel surrendered his life to the God of the Bible. His family was “shattered by his betrayal” but Nabeel writes, [God] reached me through investigations, dreams, and visions, and called me to prayer in my suffering. It was there that I found Jesus. To follow him is worth giving up everything. Learn More Short Blog: Dreams and Visions for Ahmadi Muslim - Nabeel Qureshi External Book: Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity Reference Nabeel Qureshi, “Christ Called Me Off the Minaret,” ChristianityToday.com, January 8, 2014, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/january-february/christ-called-me-off-minaret.html.

I had seen my share of Bible verses on placards at Gay Pride marches. That Christians who mocked me on Gay Pride Day were happy that I and everyone I loved were going to hell was clear as blue sky. Rosaria Butterfield wrote these words to describe her experience of Christianity before becoming a Christian herself. At that time, she was not, in any way, interested in the God of the Bible. I used my post to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful, and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests… But as part of Rosaria’s desire to create a better world, she worked to find out more about those who were preventing it from happening. “I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me.” At one point in time, her investigation led her to meet with a local pastor named Ken Smith. Ken was not like other Christians she had known. He didn't quote Bible verses condemning her. He did not mock. He engaged… Something else happened. Ken and his wife, Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We did book exchanges. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. They did not act as if such conversations were polluting them. They did not treat me like a blank slate. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. Vulnerable. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken's God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. These conversations got her interested in reading the book that formed so much of Ken’s life. I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired. But the Bible got to be bigger inside me than I. It overflowed into my world. As Rosaria read the Bible and learned about Jesus, two competing worldviews battled inside her for supremacy over her life. Eventually, the Christian worldview won out and she decided to give her life to Christ. Then, one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked. In this war of worldviews, Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess. Conversion was a train wreck. I did not want to lose everything that I loved. But the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. Learn More Short Blog: Wrong Side of Hate Concerning LGBTQ Issues - Brady Cone Reference Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, “My Train Wreck Conversion,” ChristianityToday.com, February 7, 2013, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html.

In his book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking stated that “philosophy is dead” because it “has not kept up with modern developments in science.” This is ironic because Hawking spent a great deal of the book philosophizing and, unfortunately, doing it quite poorly. Furthermore, some of this poor philosophy was directed against the existence of God. Although Stephen Hawking was a brilliant scientist, he was deeply ignorant of the current state of philosophy. The truth is that philosophers of science are very well informed of advancements in science. Some philosophers, such as David Albert, even have a doctorate in physics. Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of physics, points out just how wrong Hawking was. Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed. Given how Hawking failed to understand the true state of philosophy, his arguments against the existence of God should be taken with a grain of salt. Arguments for and against the existence of God are, after all, primarily philosophical issues and not scientific ones. Learn More Short Blog: Close Relationship Between Science and Philosophy Reference Ross Andersen, “What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology,” The Atlantic, January 19, 2012, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/.

Does the Bible predict the coming of the Muslim prophet Muhammad? Many Muslims argue that a passage in Deuteronomy 18:17&18 speaks of their prophet. The passage says: And the Lord said to [Moses]: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. (NKJV) The text says that this special prophet would be like Moses and that he would be from among the Israelites’ “brethren.” Muslims argue that Muhammad was an Arab and since Arabs are related to the Israelites through their forefather Abraham, therefore Muhammad fulfills the prophecy made here. The problem with this claim is that the definition of “brethren” is made clear in the previous chapter. Deuteronomy 17:15 says: …you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (NKJV) Other verses in Deuteronomy make it clear that “foreigner” (also described as “alien” or “stranger”) refers to those who were not of the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g. Deut. 10:19, 28:43). Since Arabs (including Muhammad) were not of the twelve tribes of Israel, the Muslim prophet Muhammad could not fulfill this prophecy. On the other hand, Jesus was of the twelve tribes and therefore could (and did – Acts 3:22) fulfill this prophecy. Learn More Short Blog: Jesus Prophesied Coming of Muhammad in John 14? External Article: Who Is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18? Reference Deut. 18:17-18 (NKJV) Deut. 17:15 (NKJV)

Some people claim that because all religions are essentially the same, therefore they’re all essentially true. These same people will also insist that it’s arrogant to think that “your religion” is superior to all others. But what these people don’t understand is that they are actually being arrogant. It’s arrogant to think that “all the religions are true” because many of the founders and leaders of the world’s religions endured great hardship—and even perished—in order to advance their religion. For example, in the early days of Islam, Muhammad, and his followers fled to Medina in order to escape the persecution in Mecca. Around the start of Mormonism, Brigham Young led his followers on a long and arduous journey in order to continue practicing Mormonism in freedom. During the reign of Asoka, Buddhists sent out many missionaries to propagate their religious convictions. And during the Roman Empire, Christians refused to give up their faith in Jesus despite brutal persecution. Why would the different religions of the world do this if they didn’t think their religion was true and that others were (at least partially) wrong? If they believed they were spreading an idea that was essentially the same as all the others, why would they be prepared to exert so much effort, and even endure enormous suffering? Obviously, they did not think their religion was the same as all the others. They did not think all religions were true. They must have thought their religion was substantially different from what already existed, and that it was crucial people knew this. The person who claims “all the religions are the same and true,” is claiming to know the nature of those religions better than their founders, leaders, and missionaries. Now that’s real arrogance. Learn More Short Blog: Do All Religions Have Part of the Truth? Video (below): All the World's Religions Cannot Be True - Neutrality is Impossible

Does God exist? The Leibnizian cosmological argument concludes that God does exist and that we can have good reason to believe he exists. One version of the argument goes as follows, 1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe is an existing thing. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. Does this prove that the Christian God, with all of his many attributes, exists? No. But if the argument is successful, it does get us one big step closer to that God. Learn More Short Blog: Would God Create a Universe With a Lot of "Wasted" Time and Space? External Book: How Reason Can Lead to God: A Philosopher’s Bridge to Faith External Video (below): Leibniz' Contingency Argument