The Existence of God: Eastwooding Dawkins

Atheist Richard Dawkins refuses to debate apologists William Lane Craig. But ever since the Clint Eastwood speech at the 2012 GOP Convention in which he spoke to an empty chair representing President Barack Obama, many have taken the gig and used it. That is was Craig did recently in articulating the various arguments for the existence of God. The empty chair represented Dawkins and Lane quotes the famous atheist's writings. It is a witty way to make your point. In the end, however, what follows is a helpful resource on the Christian arguments for the existence of God.

Does God exists? Here are the common reasons for saying yes.


Moral Argument For God




Teleological Argument For God:



Ontological Argument For God




Cosmological Argument For God



Here is the entire thing:



HT: Eugangelion


For more:
Collision:  An Important Documentary About Faith and Atheism  
Atheism and Moral Relativistic Parenting: Touchstone Takes on Harris
Harris on the Science of Morality:  Nice Try But No Cigar  
Natural Morality:  The Disconnect Between Darwinism and Morality
Freud's Wish Fulfillment: Why Atheism Can't Explain Atheism
The Atheist Debates
Atheism Is Not Great - The D'Souza and Hitchens Debate
John Lennox: The New Atheism and the Gospel  Blogizomai -D'Souza: Are Atheists Cultural Christians
Survival of the Moral: Can Man Be Moral Without God?
Re: Survival of the Moral: Can Man Be Moral Without God?
"Atheism Remix" by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
"The Delusion of Disbelief" by David Aikman
"The End of Reason" by Ravi Zacharias
What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza"Life After Death" by Dinesh D'Souza 
D'Souza - Letters To A Young Conservative  D'Souza - Ronald Reagan  Mohler:  An Argument Against Atheists - Dinesh D'Souza on Christianity
Justice and the Implications of Atheism: Doug Wilson Hits the Nail on Its Head

All Around the Web - May 25, 2013

USA Today - Kids access porn sites at 6, begin flirting online at 8 | Read that headline again.

Kids start watching porn from as early as the age of 6, and begin flirting on the Internet from the age of 8, according to a survey of over 19,000 parents worldwide.

What's more, kids are accessing instant messaging and computer games at a much younger age than just a few years ago. At the extreme, 3.45% of kids covered in the analysis used Instant Messaging to chat with friends while 2% of computer game addicts were just 5 years old.

The study results were released exclusively to CyberTruth by Bitdefender. The Bucharest-based antivirus vendor correlated results of an online survey of parents with data compiled from its parental control services, such as which sites parents choose to block, and which sites children access regularly.

Almost a quarter of the kids accounted for in the study had at least one social network account at age 12, while 17% were social media users at 10.


BBC - Is child sponsorship ethical? |

More than nine million children around the world are sponsored by Western donors and a major new report on the work of one aid agency has found that sponsorship does improve children's lives. It has reopened a long and fierce debate over whether this hugely popular form of giving to the poor is either ethical or effective.

There has been very little previous research into whether the $3bn (£2bn) transferred from the rich world to the poor through sponsoring children actually has a measurable impact.

So academics from the University of San Francisco decided to undertake the most wide-ranging study yet in six developing countries - Bolivia, Guatemala, India, Kenya, the Philippines, and Uganda.


Sean McDowell - The Genetics of Adam and Eve, The Difficulty with Genesis 1:27-28 |

God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it” (Genesis 1:27-28). 

Difficulty: Doesn’t the science of genetics refute the concept that the entire population of the world came from just one couple?

Explanation: Over the past couple of decades researchers have used “population genetics” to estimate initial population size of the human species. By studying human genetic diversity in the present day, they have tried to extrapolate back to determine the minimum size of the original population of humans necessary to produce the diversity we observe today. Some have argued that it is impossible for civilization to have come from one human couple.


NBC News - Federal government creates more low-wage jobs than Wal-Mart |

The federal government is better at creating low-paying jobs than Wal-Mart and McDonald's combined, according to a new report.

A study released earlier this month from the public policy group Demos states that through various forms of government funding in the private sector, nearly two million people are making $12 an hour or less. The number of workers at Wal-Mart and McDonald's together at $12 an hour or less is currently around 1.5 million, according to the report.

"The sheer number of those workers making so little is surprising," said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos and co-author of the study.


Russell Moore - Narnia’s Wardrobe or Magician’s Nephew: Which Comes First? | This is an old article but one worth revisiting.

Before their bedtime each night, I’m reading C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to my three oldest sons. I’m doing this because it’s a great story. But I’m also doing it because Lewis’s Narnia stories are, I believe, what shaped and molded my moral imagination as a child. I believe they are directly part of the means the Spirit used to point me to the truer Narnia in Christ. But by starting with the first book in the series, I realize I’m walking into a debate as well as into a wardrobe.

Some fellow Lewisphiles insist the series begins with The Magician’s Nephew. I disagree, emphatically.

 
From John Stonestreet

Is Darwinism Hard-Wired For Truth or Survival?

From Alister McGrath's great book Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? (read my review of the book here):

A real problem for those believe that reason can liberate us relates to contemporary interpretations of evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin is often adopted as a popular mascot by the new atheism. For example, Daniel Dennett is adamant that Darwin's theories demolish many traditional ideas - such as belief in God. Dennett playfully imagines his critics - there turn out to be rather a lot of these - demanding that Darwinism be kept on a tight leash: "Cede some or all of modern biology to Darwin, perhaps, but hold the line there! Keep Darwinian thinking out of cosmology, out of psychology, out of human culture, out of ethics, politics and religion!" For Dennett, Darwinism is a universal acid that corrodes the certainties of much traditional thought - especially religion.

Yet the attentive reader of this quote will notice a conspicuous absence from the list of disciplines that Dennett suggests might benefit from Darwinian intervention: Dennett's own discipline of philosophy. If Darwinism is indeed the universal acid that Dennet proclaims it to be, it must be allowed to corrode his own ideas - not merely those of others.

It's easy to figure out why Dennett wanted to seal his philosophy in an acid proof bubble: it relates to a disturbing question, fundamental to philosophy, that has recently received much attention: Does natural selection select for truth or for survival? More than one evolutionary theorist has concluded that natural selection does not care about truth; He cares only about reproductive success." Is human reason hardwired for survival rather than for seeking truth? If so, what are its implications for the pure reason in which the new atheism places so much trust? (103-104)

This is an extremely important point. Evolution seeks to explain everything but fails to explain its basic presuppositions. Our minds have to be free from mere survival of the fittest in order to intellectually stand outside and observe survival of the fittest. Thus truth, whatever that may mean in a consistent evolutionary worldview, becomes whatever best fits the narrative for survival rather than what is actually true.

This is not to say that evolutionists spin the truth to favor survival. It does mean that evolution cannot explain why we humans seek out truth, study everything from atoms to the universe in pursuit of more knowledge and truth. Animals do not spend their time doing such things. But we do.

Of course, to me, the reason for this is obvious. We are not simply higher evolved animals (whatever that may mean) at the top of the food chain. We are humans made in the image of God.


For more:
"Why God Won't Go Away" by Alister McGrath
Why Won't God Go Away?: McGrath on the Demise of the New Atheism 
The Atheist Debates 
Expelled: A Film About Freedom, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Expelled:  A Movie We Must Take Seriously
"Christianity's Dangerous Idea" by Alister McGrath
"Heresy" by Alister McGrath: A Review
"Atheism Remix" by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
"The Delusion of Disbelief" by David Aikman
"The End of Reason" by Ravi Zacharias
What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza
On Why Darwin Still Matters
Collision:  An Important Documentary About Faith and Atheism  
Causation and the Existence of God:  How Scientists Continue to Prove Aquinas's Point  
Creation or Manipulation:  The Limits of Man and the Evidence for God
Natural Morality:  The Disconnect Between Darwinism and Morality  
Survival of the Moral: Can Man Be Moral Without God?
Re: Survival of the Moral: Can Man Be Moral Without God?
Freud's Wish Fulfillment: Why Atheism Can't Explain Atheism  

"The Trouble With Atheism" Documentary

There is some real good in this documentary. One of the main points is that modern atheism has become another form of religion with sacred books and texts, preachers, evangelism, holy sites, and violent tendencies against those who would disagree with them.





If the above video doesn't work you can watch it in seven parts below:
















For more:
Meaning is Subjective: Trueman on Atheism & the Meaning of Everyhing
Justice and the Implications of Atheism: Doug Wilson Hits the Nail on Its Head
Collision:  An Important Documentary About Faith and Atheism  
Atheism and Moral Relativistic Parenting: Touchstone Takes on Harris
Harris on the Science of Morality:  Nice Try But No Cigar  
Natural Morality:  The Disconnect Between Darwinism and Morality
Freud's Wish Fulfillment: Why Atheism Can't Explain Atheism
The Atheist Debates
Atheism Is Not Great - The D'Souza and Hitchens Debate
John Lennox: The New Atheism and the Gospel
D'Souza: Are Atheists Cultural Christians
Survival of the Moral: Can Man Be Moral Without God?
Re: Survival of the Moral: Can Man Be Moral Without God?
"Atheism Remix" by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
"The Delusion of Disbelief" by David Aikman
"The End of Reason" by Ravi Zacharias
What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza 

All Around the Web - May 24, 2013

But what if you don't drink coffee?


HT: Everyday Theology



Doug Wilson - Rachel Held Evans Denies the Cat | This is brilliant.

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma tragedy, Rachel Held Evans took John Piper to task for claiming, right in line with the Bible, that if disaster befalls a city, it is from the hand of God (Amos 3:6). Not only is it from the hand of God, but it is from the hand of a holy God. But to know — as insurance companies do — that such things are classified as acts of God, is not to say that God is abusive.

This stance of Piper’s upsets Evans, and she went on at length about it, maintaining that this creates abusive church environments, etc. I don’t want to go point-by-point through her post here — I simply want to make one observation, in line with the great Chesterton:

“If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”

Here is the problem. Rachel Held Evans rebukes John Piper for answering the problem of evil as all orthodox Christians must, but then cops out herself. “We don’t know exactly why suffering happens in every situation . . .” Now of course this is quite right if we are maintaining that Henry got cancer because he cheated on his taxes three years ago. We don’t know that. But it is staggeringly wrong if we are talking about why our world is broken the way it is. We do know that. We have been told.

. . . 

Rachel Held Evans lives in a world where innocent people just get caught in the machinery, and God is terribly sorry about it.

Piper lives in a place where every apparent injustice will ultimately be revealed as part of a rich tapestry of means and ends, all culminating in that glorious Christlikeness that the “all things” in Romans 8:28 is yearning for. Evans lives in a place where our lives can be completely hosed, but at least God felt bad for us while He was making a hash of our little lives. “Don’t worry!” this kosmic klutz king says to us. “You didn’t deserve any of that!” These tornadoes are slippery.

But then, taking back with one hand what she just gave with the other, only a few lines later, Rachel Held Evans says that “God never fails.” Really? He protects the innocent from tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, predatory ministers, and He never fails? Why, then, do they still happen?
That, in a nutshell, is how you deny the cat.



My Way - Ginsburg says Roe gave abortion opponents target |

One of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be expected to give a rousing defense of Roe v. Wade in reflecting on the landmark vote 40 years after it established a nationwide right to abortion.

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman's right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on abortion.

"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."

The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women's rights. Rather, the Roe opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman's decision on whether to end a pregnancy.


Hershael York - Preaching Points: Aim for the Ear! |

Don't preach as would a writer; preach as a preacher! Preachers who fail to appreciate the vast difference between their oral craft and writing usually display very different understandings of their task—centered in the pulpit and congregation for one and in the desk and study for the other. . . . 

Preachers who preach as writers make three critical mistakes:

They focus more on wordcraft than on heart connection. Imagine Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. standing before the great statue of our 16th president and reading the words of his speech with no emotion, no lilt of his voice, no quaver in the phrase: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" What if he had contented himself just to read the words and not deliver them with his personality? What if, in fact, he had merely printed the manuscript and passed it out?The words King wrote were certainly powerful by themselves, but when transmitted through him, they remain so strong that reading them 50 years later, we still hear his sonorous voice because he connected with more than words. He connected with our hearts.


Glenn T. Stanton - FactChecker: Does Abba Mean Daddy? | Apparently not.

This origin of this understanding is generally traced to the notable German Lutheran New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias who in his 1971 text New Testament Theology explained that abba was "the chatter of a small child... a children's word, used in everyday talk" and seemingly "disrespectful, indeed unthinkable to the sensibilities of Jesus' contemporaries to address God with this familiar word" (p. 67).m While Jeremias did not use the word "daddy" or "papa" in relation to abba, the implication was strong and others came along to make that connection.

But other Hebrew and New Testament scholars have taken exception with this understanding.
University of Fribourg's Georg Schelbert critiqued Jeremias' assertion in a 1981 essay and then later in a 2011 book-length treatment entitled ABBA Vater. He contends that Jeremias' interpretation is in "error" and "unwarranted." He elaborates,

In the Aramaic language of the time of Jesus, there was absolutely no other word [than Abba] available if Jesus wished to speak of or address God as father. Naturally such speaking of and addressing thereby would lose its special character, for it is then indeed the only possible form!

This is because, as we shall see, abba means either "father" or one's own father. Schelbert explained that Jeremias even adjusted his earlier understanding in the face of critical peers.


Christianity Today - 7 in 10 Christians Killed Worldwide Last Year Came from Just One Country? |

Amid another surge of violence in Nigeria, the idea of an amnesty deal between the Nigerian government and militant Islamist group Boko Haram has the support of Christian president Goodluck Jonathan. But the proposal is firmly opposed by most Christian groups in the West African nation.

Following calls to offer amnesty to Boko Haram in exchange for the end of its terror campaign against Christians and other targeted groups (including the government, whose military has often been heavy-handed with militants), Jonathan has commissioned a 25-member presidential committee to examine how a pardon could be implemented. 

The Vanguard newspaper reports that "some Nigerians believe amnesty would entice those among the terrorists who are tired to rejoin normal society as law abiding citizens. They buttress their argument by pointing to the calming effect the policy had in the Niger Delta." (Delta militants have threatened to target Boko Haram themselves.)


Are press conferences going the way of the dinosaur?

John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 6.2

An Introduction to the Life and Works of Scottish Reformer John Craig
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Introduction
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 1
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 2
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 3
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 4.1
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 4.2
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 4.3
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 5.1
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 5.2
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 6.1
John Craig's Long Catechism: A New Translation - Chapter 6.2

6.
The Third Part of God’s Honor is Prayer,
Which is Declared in General With an Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer

Part 1 


    The Resurrection and the Last Estate

Q.    What should we look for at the hand of our God?
A.    The resurrection of our bodies and eternal life.

Q.    With what bodies shall we rise again?
A.    With these same bodies in substance as Christ did rise.

Q.    But the Apoftle layeth, that our bodies fhal be fpirituall.
A.    That is in respect of their present estate.

Q.    Of what condition shall our bodies be in then?
A.    Free from all corruption and alteration.

Q.    Why should we rise with the same bodies?
A.    So that they may receive their reward with the souls.

Q.    What admonition do we have here?
A.    We should dedicate our bodies to the service of God.

Q.    But will the wicked shall be partakers of the same resurrection?
A.    No doubt, but to their greater confusion.

Q.    Many doubt of this resurrection?
A.    He that fulfilled the first promises may and will perform the rest.

Q.    What kind of life is promised to us?
A.    Eternal life apart from all misery

Q.    What is prepared for the wicked?
A.    Eternal death apart from all joy.

Q.    But yet they shall live eternally?
A.    That life shall be to live in death eternally.

Q.    What admonition do we have here?
A.    We should wait continually for the coming of the Lord.

Q.    What other admonitions do we have here?
A.    We should thirst continually for eternal life.

Q.    Is it enough to know these things to be true?
A.    No, but we must know and apply them to ourselves.

Q.    What are these Articles, which we have declared?
A.    The ground and foundation of our faith and religion.

Q.    How should we apply them to ourselves?
A.    By our own true and lively faith.

    Of True Faith With the Fruits

Q.    What is true faith?
A.    An Assured knowlege of God’s mercy towards us for Christ’s sake, according to His promises.

Q.    Do we have any natural inclinations to this faith?
A.    None at all.  Instead, we have a natural rebellion.

Q.    Who then works these things in us?
A.    God’s Holy Spirit does seal them up in our hearts.

Q.    How can guilty men be assured of God’s mercy?
A.    By the truth of His promise made to the repentant.

Q.    Yet our guiltiness cannot but fear God’s Justice?
A.    Therefore we Interpose the satisfaction of Christ.

    The First Fruit of Faith

Q.    What is the first fruits of our faith?
A.    By it we are made one with Christ our head.

Q.    How is this union made and when?
A.    When we are made flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones.

Q.    Was not this done, when He took our flesh?
A.    No, for only then was He made flesh of our flesh.

Q.    When are we made flesh of His flesh?
A.    When we are united with him spiritually as lively members with the Head.


For more on Craig, Scottish Theology, and Knox:
"The School of Faith" by Thomas F. Torrance: A Review
"Scottish Theology" by T. F. Torrance: A Review
"John Knox: An Introduction to His Life and Works" - A Review
"The Mighty Weakness of John Knox" by Douglas Bond: A Review
"John Knox & the Reformation" by M. Lloyd-Jones & Iain Murray: A Review
"John Knox" by Rosalind K. Marshall
Douglas Bond on the Legacy of John Knox


For more on Calvin and Calvinism:
"Foundations of Grace" by Steven Lawson: A Review
Was Calvin a Calvinist?  Helm Weighs In
Counterintuitive Calvinism: Tim Keller on Calvin's Institutes 


For more on the Reformation:
"The Reformation for Armchair Theologians" by Glenn S. Sunshine: A Review
The Theology of the Reformers  
The Unquenchable Flame  
"On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
John Calvin:  A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology 
Christianity's Dangerous Idea
"Five Leading Reformers"     
 Was Calvin a Calvinist?  Helm Weighs In 
He Turned the Water Into Wine: MacArthur, Alcohol, & Christian Liberty
Theology Thursday | Calvin on the Redemptive Necessity of the Resurrection
Calvinist Baptists and the Many (False) Misconceptions
"Without the Gospel": A Gem From John Calvin
Calvin on God in Theology and the Christian Life
Calvin on Providence
Calvin on Treasures in Heaven
Calvin on Fasting
Calvin on Prayer: Why Bother?

All Around the Web - May 23, 2013

John Stonestreet - The Gods We Worship, Part 2 |

The 20^th century is a record of the human casualties of idol worship: the states we worshipped slaughtered millions. The worship of sex produced broken relationships, epidemic diseases, slavery, and addiction. The worship of self led to the loss of empathy and charity in everyday life, and allowed evils like abortion to remain hidden and flourish. And the worship of stuff creates a nation that tramples security guards for flatscreen TV’s, the day after we supposedly are giving thanks.


The Blaze - Megyn Kelly Gets Into Explosive Debate With Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell’s Attorney |




Reuters - “Messiah” is increasingly popular as name for U.S. boys |

Sophia tops the list of names for American baby girls for the second year in a row, while King and Messiah are becoming increasingly popular names for boys, the U.S. Social Security Administration said on Thursday.

Jacob has become a standby for boys’ names, topping that category for the 14th straight year. Liam and Elizabeth broke into the Top 10 at No. 6 and No. 10 respectively, the SSA said in a statement.
But rising on the list are a couple of less traditional, but more attention-grabbing names. Messiah was the fourth fastest-growing name for boys, rising to 387th in 2012 from the 633th spot in 2011, according to the federal agency.


Yahoo! - Popular Baby Names 2012: Why Zoe Saldana and ‘Duck Dynasty’ Were Influential |

A&E's cult hit "Duck Dynasty" --  a reality show that follows a family that owns a duck call-making business -- was also an influencer, believe it or not. Jase is the third-fastest-rising name for boys, and Silas isn't far behind.

"Jase has had peaks before," Wattenberg says. "Whenever someone named Jason comes along on TV who goes by Jase, which is the case on 'Duck Dynasty' with Jase Robertson, there is a spike. For example, a few years ago there was a big brother character named Jase Wirey – it went up that year too." But it's currently at an all-time high in popularity, likely because it has a fresh sound. "If you think about it, you take this name Jason, which people always like but maybe they're a little bored with, and make it sound like Chase and it suddenly sounds new again."


David Roach - FIRST-PERSON: 10 reasons to be involved in a church |

1. Church involvement is evidence that you're a Christian in the first place. It also helps keep you from abandoning the faith. According to the author of Hebrews, the antidote to developing an "unbelieving heart" that leads you "to fall away from the living God" is to "exhort one another" (Hebrews 3:12-13) -- an activity that occurs most prominently in the church.

2. Gathering with a church encourages believers to love others and do good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25).

3. A church is the main venue for using your spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-31). God has given you abilities and talents intended to help other Christians. If you're not involved in a church, others are being deprived of what you have to offer.

4. A church helps you defend Christianity against those who attack it. When Jude told the early Christians to "contend for the faith" (Jude 3), he directed his instruction toward a group of believers, not a scattering of lone-ranger Christians. Answering challenges from coworkers, friends and family members is always easier when you can ask fellow church members for help and wisdom.