• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/112

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

112 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
What is apologetics?
Apologetics: the reasoned defense of the Christian faith (Gk. apologia: reason, defense).(1 Pt. 3:15) “…always being prepared to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”
- Van Til- Christian Worldview vs. Non-Christian Worldview
- Craig- that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of Christianity.
What is Christianity?
– More detailed: Historical reformed defense of the faith as expressed in the traditional reformed creeds and confessions (Heidelberg, Westminster, etc.)
– Christianity is an entire worldview
What is a worldview?
a person’s worldview is their network of ultimate beliefs, assumptions, values, and ideas that functions as a framework for interpreting their immediate experiences and for interacting with the world.
What are the three aspects of apologetics?
1. Proof- offering reasons why you should believe
2. Defense- countering reasons to believe the Christian worldview is false or unbelievable
3. Offense- offering reasons why the Non-Christian worldview is false
Why do we do apologetics?
1. to give glory to God
2. to silence the unbeliever
3. to evangelize the unbeliever
4. to edify the church and the believer
5. to protect the church and the believer
6. to promote theological insights
7. to develop critical thinking
What is the biblical mandate to do apologetics? GIve two exhortations and two examples.
1. Peter's Exhortation: 1 Pt. 3:15- be prepared to make a defense, with gentleness and respect, in the midst of suffering
2. Jude's Exhortation: Jude 3- to contend for the faith, the content of the faith, the threat of false teachers
3. John's Example- John 20: 30-31, to lead people to faith, signs= testimony
4. Paul's example= Acts 17:2, 18, 19 he reasoned with them from the scriptures. 2 Cor. 10:45- take every thought captive
What does it TAKES to make a worldview?
Theology, Anthropology, Knowledge, Ethics, and Salvation
What is the Christian view of theology?
- Ontological trinity
- God is a perfect being: he possesses all perfections and no limitations (Matt. 5:48)
- God is a (or rather the) Personal Absolute
- God created the world ex nihilo
What is the Christian view of man?
1. Created in God's image (Gen. 1:27, 9:6)
2. Fallen (Gen. 3:6-9)
3. Redeemed (2 Cor. 3:17-18)
What is the Christian view of knowledge?
–Natural revelation: available to all humans through natural means (Ps. 19:1-2; Rom. 1:19-20).
– Special revelation: available to some humans through supernatural means (Matt. 4:4; 2 Tim. 3:16).
What is a Christian view of ethics?
- Morality is real, objective, and universal: An objective moral standard: the law of God (1 John 3:4); An objective moral goal: the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31); An objective moral motive: the love of God (John 14:15, 21; 1 John 5:3).
- Deontological: laws/duties
- Teleological: consequences ).
- Existential: motivation (“the heart”)
What is the Christian view of salvation?
- Problem: human sin invites divine wrath and judgment (Rom. 6:23)
- Solution: divine salvation through the cross of Christ (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:21-24)
- God's part: incarnation and atonement (Phil 2:6-8)
- Man's Part: Faith and Repentance (John 3:16)
What is the motto of classical apologetics?
Faith based on reason
What is the basic approach of classical apologetics?
Two stage method:
1) Show that God exists using traditional theistic arguments: cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral
2) Show that Jesus was the Son of God using historical arguments: The Gospels are generally reliable- from prophecy, character, miracles and resurrection
What is the rational for the classical approach?
- Historical pedigree
- Logical, straightforward structure
- Uses premises and structures that are acceptable to the NCWV
- You cannot argue for miracles without first arguing for God’s existence. This most clearly distinguishes classical apologists from evidentialist apologists. This conviction leads to the two-step approach- theism, then the Christian God.
Who are representatives of the classical apologetic method?
Geisler, Sproul, Moreland, and Craig
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the classical method?
Strengths- historical pedigree, simple, works on universally accepted principles of reason, objective, and sound arguments

Weaknesses- misses noetic effects of sin, assumes everyone agrees on objective method, ambiguous about nat. rev., assumes religious neutrality, allows for autonomous human reason, treats the Bible like any other document, fails to recognize that you can argue for a CWV without begging the question or allowing for autonomy, and it's too rationalistic.
What is the motto of the evidentialist method?
Faith based on evidence
Give the approach, rational and representatives for the evidential method.
Approach: one stage method that offers evidence to show that Christianity is the most probable explanation for the evidence (biology, origins of life, resurrection, etc.)
Rational: facts settled by evidence, gives the skeptic evidence, appears scientific, Xianity can be vindicated by science and history, the NT provides evidence, any evidence for miracles is direct evidence for God, and you can add more evidence
Reps: Montgomery, Swineburne, McDowell, Habermas
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidential method?
Strengths: familiar and intuitive approach, "objective", the NT uses evidence, makes a strong case for the resurrection, and the centrality of the resurrection makes sense in the NT

Weakness: fails to account for noetic effects of sin, not every belief needs to be justified by evidence, doesn't account for presuppositions, evaluates the Bible by external evidential standards, Rich man and lazarus, context of evidential proof text (confirms not proves), uses a diff. epistemology for apologetics, hard to defend inerrancy, and poor with post moderns.
What is the basic motto of Fideist apologetics?
Faith beyond reason
- A approach to defending Christianity
- Christianity is accepted as a matter of faith
- Can be defended by showing the objections fail to stand to reason and the rules of reason do not apply to faith
What is the rationale for Fideists?
The Bible doesn't present evidence for faith, and very few people get converted that way anyways. The standards of reason do not demand that something be proven true to be believed and known.
Who are the representatives for the Fideists?
Blaise Pascal, Alvin Plantiga, C. Stephen Evans
What are the strengths for fideists?
- Seems right that most people don't come to faith based on evidence and Christian beliefs go beyond evidence
- Nothing wrong with using reason to critique reason
- Some of their pragmatic arguments are good
- Health counter to evidentialism
What are the weaknesses of fideists?
- Doesn't make a proper distinction between knowing something is true and showing something is true
- Doesn't address important apologetic issues
- Unhelpful for converting unbelievers
What is the basic motto of presuppositional apologetics?
Reason based on faith
What is the basic approach?
Step 1- Show that the unbelievers WV undermines rationale thought
Step 2- Show that the Christian WV supports rational thought
What is the rational behind presuppositional apologetics?
- You cannot argue for Christianity from a neutral position
- No neutrality, and no autonomy
- Apologetics must take into account scripture, theology and apologetics
- People will interpret the "evidence" based on their WV
- The non-Christian WV must be critiqued
Who are representatives for the presuppositional method?
- Van Til, Frame, Clark, Bahnsen
What are the strengths of the presuppositional method?
- Accounts for noetic effects of sin
- Proper view of scripture, authoritative, and self - attesting
- Useful against post-moderns
- Christian epistemology
- Refuses to allow for neutrality and autonomy
What are the weaknesses for the presuppositional method?
- Presuppositionalists can spend more time arguing about apologetics than doing apologetics
- State the argument, but don't explain it
- Harder to do
- Some are reluctant to use any kind of evidence
- Some state it in such a way as to rule out any apologetics
What is the basic motto of eclectic apologetics?
Take the best, and leave the rest
What is the basic approach for the eclectic apologetic?
Use the best tool for the job, use whatever apologetic method fits the context
What is the basic rational for the eclectic approach?
- The bible doesn't mandate a specific type
- Each type has good arguments
- Doing apologetics is better than arguing about it
Who represents the eclectic method?
C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, and Tim Keller
What are the strengths of the eclectic method?
- The best tool for the job makes good sense
- We should be doing evangelism
- This method is not as restrictive
What are the weaknesses of the eclectic method?
- Takes on the weaknesses of other arguments
- If you use more than one argument they may conflict
- Doesn't connect apologetics with theology
- Lacks a coherent style
What are the two major principles behind the presuppositional method?
1. No neutrality- There can be no intellectual or epistemological neutrality in apologetics. We all use presuppositions in our thinking. The Bible doesn't allow for neutrality (Matt. 12:30, Col. 2:8). And, our presuppositions about God greatly affect our ability to interpret the evidence.

2. No autonomy- There can be no intellectual or epistemological autonomy in apologetics. Our minds are not the final standard for thought. God's revelation is. The Bible commands us to take our thoughts captive- take every thought captive to obey Christ…” (2 Cor. 10:4-5). The No Autonomy principle follows naturally from the very idea of an absolute personal Creator who reveals his thoughts to his creatures. The Creator’s mind is definitive and normative. The creature’s mind is derivative and subordinate.
What are the implications for the presuppositional method?
- No pretense of autonomy
- No pretense of objectivity
- No epistemological double standards
- Common ground, not objective ground
- Clash of WV
What are the thee steps in the practice of the presuppositional method?
1. Identify the non- Christians presuppositions
2. Show the inadequacy of their WV
3. Show the adequacy of the CWV
What is the transcendental argument?
A transcendental argument is an argument, which aims to prove that certain presuppositions are necessary preconditions of rational thought and experience. The transcendental argument contends that only the Christian worldview can account for the things we take for granted all the time (e.g., reason, truth, order, morality, personality) and thus for our ability to make any rational sense of the world we live in.
Does presuppositionalism preclude the use of traditional theistic arguments?
No, but can't use them in a way that suggests neutrality or autonomy, can't use unsound arguments, and must still deal with the presuppositions.
How does the PTA differ from the TTA in starting point?
PTA starts with how we know, and TTA starts with what we know.
What are some advantages of PTA?
1. Doesn't violate the no neutrality and no autonomy theology in scripture.
2. Theology and apologetics connect well
3. It argues that common ground isn't neutral, but Christian
4. Enables you to show that objections against Christianity must presuppose it's truth
5. It defends the CWV as a whole
What is the basic approach to proving the existence of God using the PTA?
To show that only a Personal Absolute can account for objective norms of morality and rationality.
What is the PTA proof for the existence of God from moral normatively?
(1) Human moral judgments presuppose absolute norms of morality.

(2) Norms of morality can only arise within a personal context

(3) If norms of morality were grounded in non-absolute persons (e.g., human culture), then they would not be absolute (i.e., they would lack necessity and ultimate authority).

4) Therefore, absolute norms of morality must be grounded in a Personal Absolute.

(5) Therefore, human moral judgments presuppose a Personal Absolute (i.e., God).
What is the PTA proof for the existence of God from moral accountability?
(1) Our moral discourse presupposes that we are morally accountable for our deeds (i.e., we should be commended for our good deeds and condemned for our bad deeds).
(2) If there is no Personal Absolute, then there is no moral accountability.
(3) Therefore, our moral discourse presupposes a Personal Absolute (i.e., God).
What is the PTA proof for the existence of God from rational normativity?
(1) Human reasoning presupposes absolute norms of rationality (i.e., ultimate standards of reason).
(2) Absolute norms of rationality can only arise within a personal context.
(3) If absolute norms of rationality were grounded in non-absolute persons (e.g., human minds) then they would not be absolute (i.e., they would lack necessity and ultimate authority).
(4) Therefore, absolute norms of rationality must be grounded in a Personal Absolute (i.e., an absolute rational mind).
(5) Therefore, human reasoning presupposes a Personal Absolute (i.e., God).
What is the PTA proof for the existence of God from cognitive reliability?
(1) Human reasoning presupposes the general reliability of our cognitive faculties
(2) If our cognitive faculties did not ultimately come from God, then we have no good reason to assume that they are generally reliable.
(3) Therefore, human reasoning presupposes that our cognitive faculties ultimately come from God.
What is the PTA proof for the existence of God from objective truths?
(1) There are objective truths (i.e., truths that are not dependent on human opinion).
(2) A truth is a true proposition.
(3) A proposition is best understood as a mental thing rather than a material thing; that is to say, a proposition is a thought.
(4) If there were no humans then there would still be propositions (e.g., the true proposition that there are no humans).
(5) Therefore, propositions cannot be human thoughts; they cannot be dependent on human minds.
(6) Therefore, propositions must be divine thoughts; they must be dependent on a divine mind.
(7) Therefore, objective truths presuppose the existence of God.
What is the PTA proof for the existence of God from logic?
(1) There are laws of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction).
(2) The laws of logic are necessary truths, i.e., necessarily true propositions.
(3) A proposition can only be true if it exists.
(4) Therefore, the laws of logic are necessarily existent propositions.
(5) A proposition is best understood as a mental entity rather than a material entity; that is to say, a proposition is a thought.
(6) Therefore, the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts.
(7) Therefore, the laws of logic presuppose a necessarily existent mind.
(8) Therefore, the laws of logic presuppose the existence of God.
Objection: “God is by definition a transcendent being. So if God exists, he must be beyond human understanding or human description. But if that’s so, Christians are being inconsistent when they claim to tell us about God!”
We cannot accept any definition of the Bible. The bible define's God's transcendence as independent, eternal, spiritual, beyond sense experience, and the absolute sovereign Lord. Therefore, he can reveal himself if he wants.
Objection: “Statements about God are cognitively meaningless because they cannot be empirically verified or falsified, i.e., proven or disproven by sensory observations.”
Faulty presupp- a statement is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified or falsifiable. That statement itself cannot be empirically verified or falsified (self-refuting). Comes from logical positivism.
Objection: “Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it? Whichever way you answer, there’s something God can’t do. So the very idea of an omnipotent being is incoherent.”
The Bible says there are things God can’t do- lie, sin, forget, break covenants, etc. Biblical omnipotence- God is perfect in his power and his purposes cannot be defeated.
– God cannot create a rock he cannot lift.
– Any rock God creates, he can lift.
– These two statements are logically consistent- one stated positive, one state negative. The second emphasizes God’s perfection.
Objection: “If God is omniscient then he knows in advance what he will decide to do at any future point in time. But if he already knows what he will decide, then his decisions aren’t free when he comes to make them! So God can’t have both freedom and foreknowledge.”
God is free to do what know he will do. His characteristics do not contradict each other, the way ours do.
Objection: “Christians claim that the universe is too complex to have come about by chance, so it must have a supernatural designer. But surely the designer would have to be at least as complex as the universe! So who designed the designer? The only way to avoid an infinite regress is to accept that there can be complexity and order without a designer.”
Dawkins’ confuses God’s thoughts from his being. Certainly, His thoughts must be at least as complex. God’s being doesn’t have to be as complex. God is simple. He cannot be divided into parts. He is one thing. There is no need for a designer to put him together. Thinks of God as a physical entity. A physical thing does need complexity to carry information. Not true for non-physical entities. God is not a superman.
Objection: “The God of the Bible is a moral monster! He curses the entire human race just because Adam ate the wrong fruit, he orders Abraham to sacrifice his own son, he demands the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath and for insulting your parents, and he orders the Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites (including their women and children). He even sends his own son to die a gruesome, agonizing death on a cross!”
Response #1- This isn’t really an objection to the existence of God as such; it’s only an objection to the way the Bible depicts God.

Response #2: The objection doesn’t fairly represent the character of the God of the Bible.

Response #3: The objection assumes (at least implicitly) a non-Christian worldview.
Objection: “The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are logically inconsistent.”
Response #1: There are models for understanding the Trinity and the Incarnation that do not seem to involve any logical inconsistencies.
• Example: “social” models of the Trinity
• Example: “two-minds” models of the Incarnation

Response #2- These doctrines are paradoxical in the sense that they appear to us to be logically inconsistent, but they do not involve real logical inconsistencies.
What is the PTA argument against pantheism?
– (1) If Pantheism is true, then there is no Personal Absolute distinct from the world.
– (2) If there is no Personal Absolute distinct from the world, then there are no objective norms of morality and rationality by which things in the world can be judged.
– (3) Therefore, morality and rationality presuppose that Pantheism is false.
What is the PTA argument against dualism?
– (1) If Dualism is true, then there is no Personal Absolute.
– (2) If there is no Personal Absolute, then there are no objective norms of morality and rationality by which things in the world can be judged.
– (3) Therefore, morality and rationality presuppose that Dualism is false.
*To be "good" or "evil" you must insert a third thing, then you have an absolute thing.
What is the PTA argument against Unitarian Theism (ultimate unity without ultimate plurality)?
– (1) The universe manifests both unity and plurality.
– (2) If plurality is not ultimate, then either plurality can come from pure unity or plurality is an illusion.
– (3) Plurality cannot come from pure unity and plurality is not an illusion.
– (4) If unity is not ultimate, then either unity can come from pure plurality or unity is an illusion.
– (5) Unity cannot come from pure plurality and unity is not an illusion.
– (6) Therefore, there must be both ultimate unity and ultimate plurality.
– (7) Therefore, Unitarian Theism is false.
What is the second response to Unitarian Theism?
– (1) God (as a perfect being) must manifest perfect love.
– (2) Perfect love necessarily involves love of another (i.e., not merely self-love).
– (3) Therefore, God must manifest love of another.
– (4) Therefore, God cannot be a uni-personal being.
– (5) Therefore, Unitarian Theism is false.
What is the basic approach to the PTA proof for the inspiration of the Bible ?
• Basic approach: show that the authority and inspiration of the Bible is an integral element of the Christian worldview, which alone can make sense of our human experience.
– Bottom line: if you throw out the Bible then you have to throw out God too!
What is the "God has spoken" proof of the inspiration of the Bible?
– (1) God is a Personal Absolute who has created us in his image.
– (2) Therefore, we would expect God to enter into a personal relationship with us.
– (3) God has given us the capacity for verbal communication.
– (4) God himself also has the capacity for verbal communication!
– (5) Verbal communication is one of the normal means of initiating, sustaining, and developing inter-personal relationships.
– (6) Therefore, we would expect God to verbally communicate with us.
• Conclusion: there is a special verbal revelation available to us.
What are the three requirements for any credible alternative to the Bible?
– (1) It should purport to be a special verbal revelation.
– (2) It should reveal a Personal Absolute who is ultimately both One and Many.
– (3) It should avoid undermining its own reliability.
Why does the Qur'an fail the requirements to be an alt. to the Bible?
– (3) It undermines its own reliability by affirming that parts of the Bible (Torah, Psalms, Gospels) were divinely revealed while also contradicting the teachings of those parts. It affirms parts of the Bible, but then contradicts those teachings in other areas. Jesus is not the messiah and no salvation by grace.
The muslim's claim the Bible is corrupted. How does this undermine the Qur'an?
First, the Qur'an suggests the the Christians and the Jews knew that Muhammad was real. We have full NT manuscripts from the 4th and 5th century, before Muhammad. If they weren't corrupt then, then they can't be corrupt now.
Second, If God does preserve his word from corruption, then the Bible is true. If God doesn't, then the Qur'an isn't true either.
What evidence supports the traditional cannon of the Bible?
- External sources attest that the Biblical books were written by the apostles, or with their approval.
- Internal: The OT quotes itself. The NT quotes the OT. The NT and the OT work together. NT internal attestation. Revelation acts like a bookend. Providence.
What is the overall argument for the Bible as part of the Christian WV?
1) God exists as a Personal Absolute who is ultimately both One and Many.
– (2) If God exists, we should expect God to speak to us (i.e., a special verbal revelation).
– (3) The Bible is the only viable candidate for a special verbal revelation from God.
– (4) Therefore, the Bible is a special verbal revelation from God.
– (5) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative.
What are some additional confirming evidences of the inspiration of the Bible?
- Predictive prophesy
- Modern cosmology
- Theological unity
- Theological profundity
- Archeological evidence
- Spiritual impact
- Practical benefits
What is the basic approach to responding to Biblical criticism?
• Basic approach: show that objections to the authority and inspiration of the Bible are based on non-Christian presuppositions (and thus beg the question against the Christian).
• Objection: “The most natural readings of the Bible present us with clear contradictions (e.g., between the Gospel accounts) and historical errors.”
– Response #1: The Christian worldview entails a distinctively Christian hermeneutic that takes the existence of God and the divine inspiration of the Bible as presuppositions.
– Response #2: Critics often read the Bible like “literalistic fundamentalists”!
• Objection: “Professional historians have to approach documents from a neutral perspective; they cannot allow any religious assumptions to influence their historical analysis. So a proper historical method must leave aside any theological assumptions. But when that historical method is applied to the Bible, historians conclude that it isn’t historically reliable.”
– Response #1: It is impossible to conduct any academic study from a neutral perspective.
– Response #2: The methodology of historical biblical criticism is not neutral in any case; it is based on methodological naturalism (the view that the only admissible explanations for any event are ‘natural’ explanations).
– Response #3: The Christian worldview entails a distinctively Christian historical method that takes the existence of God and the divine inspiration of the Bible as presuppositions.
What is the basic PTA argument against false scriptures?
• Basic approach: show that no competitors to the Bible present a worldview that can make sense of our human experience.
What are the three general problems with other types of scriptures?
– (1) A deficient understanding of God.
– (2) A deficient understanding of revelation.
– (3) A deficient understanding of salvation.
What is the major problem with the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures?
– (1) Scriptures that don’t purport to be a special verbal revelation from God.
What is the major problem with the Torah, Qur’an, and Book of Mormon?
• All alternatives to the Bible are dependent on the Bible at some point. But, they claim it's corrupted at some point.
What is the basic approach to the case for the resurrection?
• Basic approach: show that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an integral element of the Christian worldview, which alone can make sense of our human experience.
What is the narrow case for the resurrection from the Bible?
1) The Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative (as argued above).
– (2) The Bible affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
– (3) Therefore, the bodily resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.
– Doesn’t separate the fact from the meaning. Argues for both fact and meaning.
– Argues from the Bible to the resurrection, rather than from the resurrection to the Bible.
– Doesn’t ask us to treat the Bible like any other ancient document.
– Very simple in it’s logical structure.
What is the broad case for the resurrection from the Christian WV?
– (1) The Christian worldview affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
– (2) The Christian worldview is the only worldview that can adequately account for those aspects of human experience we take for granted (morality, rationality, truth, etc.).
– (3) The Christian worldview offers the most coherent explanation for all the relevant evidence pertaining to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
– (4) Therefore, it is unreasonable to reject the Christian worldview.
– (5) Therefore, it is unreasonable to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
What is the Ad Hominem Case for the resurrection?
– (1) All ancient documents should be evaluated by the same standards.
– (2) If the NT is evaluated by the same standards as other ancient documents, then it is historically reliable at least in its major claims.
– (3) If an ancient document is historically reliable at least in its major claims, then we have good reason to believe those claims.
– (4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus is one of the major claims of the NT.
– (5) Therefore, we have good reason to believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.
What is the basic defense we use when responding to arguments against Miracles?
• Basic approach: show that objections to miracles are based on non-Christian presuppositions (and thus beg the question against the Christian). They assume the C WV is false, rather than seeking to evaluate the CWV.
• Objection: “A miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of nature. But the laws of nature cannot be violated; if they could, they wouldn’t be laws! So miracles have to be impossible in principle.”
• Response #1: Miracles don’t have to be defined as violations of the laws of nature.

– Response #2: The laws of nature don’t have to be understood as inviolable laws.
• Philosophers debate what it means to be a law of nature.
• Objection: “We should always judge our present experiences in light of our past experiences. Our past experience is always uniformly that events follow the laws of nature. A miraculous event would therefore contradict our entire past experience. So we should always seek some non-miraculous explanation of our present experiences.”
Denies first experiences and begs the question.
• Objection: “Even if miracles are possible, they must be extremely improbable in principle. There will always be more probable explanations of the evidence than appeals to miracles. Since one should always accept the most probable explanation of the evidence, it is always irrational to believe that a miracle occurred.”
The objection confuses prior probability with subsequent probability.
• Prior probability: the likelihood of an event taken in general (no specific context)
• Subsequent probability: the likelihood of an event based on…
o …our background knowledge (everything else we know)
o …our specific evidence (grounds for thinking the event actually occurred)
What is the basic approach to refuting the alternatives to the resurrection?
• Basic approach: show that alternative explanations for the historical and documentary evidence are incoherent or highly improbable (even on non-Christian presuppositions).
What are some alternatives to the resurrection story and how can they be refuted?
– (1) “The disciples had hallucinations of a resurrected Jesus.”- Multiple people don't have the same hallucentations
– (2) “The disciples stole the body and made up the story of the resurrection.” - No motive
– (3) “The authorities moved the body so that it wouldn’t be stolen.”- Evidence shows they guarded it not moved it, and it doesn't explain the sightings
– (4) “Jesus didn’t die on the cross; he only passed out and later revived.”- .”- John makes a point to say that blood and water flowed out. Some say this indicates the state of death. It doubts the Roman’s ability to determine death. Survival was highly improbable.
– (5) “The women went to the wrong tomb on the Sunday morning.”- One of them saw Jesus at the tomb, the other disciples went back and checked, and it only explains the empty tomb, but not everything else.
– (6) “The entire resurrection account is a legend that developed over time.”- Legends from the same period are much different than the resurrection details, much more outlandish details. Plus it takes way too long for a legend to develop.
– (7) “We don’t know—and can’t know—what actually happened.”- The Christian explanation is still the best.
What is the basic proof argument for a CWV in light of pain and suffering?
• Basic approach: show that the problem of evil and suffering as a problem only makes sense within a Christian worldview.
What is the argument for CWV from the reality of evil?
– (1) The reality of objective evil presupposes an objective standard of good and evil.
– (2) If there is no God, then there is no objective standard of good and evil.
– (3) Therefore, the reality of objective evil presupposes that there is a God. But it does matter. Therefore, there is a God.
What is the argument for the CWV from the significance of suffering?
– (1) If there is no God, then there is no ultimate meaning or purpose in the universe.
– (2) If there is no ultimate meaning or purpose in the universe, then it doesn’t ultimately matter whether or not human beings suffer.
– (3) It does ultimately matter whether or not human beings suffer.
– (4) Therefore, there is a God.
What is the basic approach for the Xian to respond to the atheistic arguments from evil?
• Basic approach: show that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is consistent with a Christian worldview and present no compelling reason to abandon Christian beliefs.
What is wrong with this argument?
– (1) If there were an all-good and all-powerful God, then he would not allow evil to exist.
– (2) Evil exists.
– (3) Therefore, there is no all-good and all-powerful God.
Can't prove the second premise.
What must the atheist prove in this argument?
– (1) If there were an all-good and all-powerful God, then he would not allow evil to exist without morally sufficient reasons (i.e., without a greater good).
– (2) Evil exists.
– (3) Therefore, if there is an all-good and all-powerful God, then he has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist.
Must prove that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason.
What is the difference between a defense and a theodicy?
– Defense: a ‘negative’ argument that the existence of God is not incompatible with evil.
– Theodicy: a ‘positive’ argument that seeks to give an explanation why God allows evil.
What is the strongest theodicy?
• (9) “O Felix Culpa!” (human sin as a precondition of the Incarnation and the Atonement)- Used by Thomas Aquinas- human sin is a precondition for incarnation and atonement, a world in which people sin and God makes atonement, is overall more valuable, then a world who makes no incarnation and atonement. A redeemed world is better than an unredeemed world. World #1- Sin, incarnation, atonement; World #2- no sin, no incarnation, and no
What is the Biblical theodicy?
Gen. 1-3; Job 1-2, 42; Lk. 13:1-5; John 9:1-3; Rom. 5,8,9; Rev. 21.
What is the probabilistic argument against God from the presence of pain and suffering?
• Basic idea: there are particular instances of evil that are so terrible that it seems God could not be morally justified in allowing them; these particular instances of evil provide strong evidence against the existence of God.
What is the Xian response to this argument?
– (1) There are instances of evil and suffering that appear to be gratuitous (i.e., such that God could not have any morally sufficient reasons for allowing them).
– (2) If there are instances of gratuitous evil and suffering, then there is no all-good and all-powerful God.
– (3) Therefore, most probably there is no all-good and all-powerful God.
Focus on premise 2, because it assumes that if God had any morally sufficient reasons then those reasons would be readily apparent to us. But that assumption is false if the C WV is true, because our knowledge is vastly different than God’s knowledge. We are much more limited.
What is the basic offensive approach to refuting the alternatives to pain and suffering?
• Basic approach: show that no other worldview offers a better solution to the problem of evil.
What is the weakness in the darwinist view on pain and suffering?
There's no objective standard from which to determine good and evil, or pain and suffering.
What is the weakness of the pantheism view on pain and suffering?
Pain can't be an illusion because pain is the experience itself.
What is the weakness of process theology's view on pain and suffering?
If man works with God to overcome evil, but God is not all-powerful, then how do we know God will win?
What is the basic presuppositional argument for God from science?
• Basic approach: show that the practice of science depends on philosophical presuppositions that can only be accounted for within a Christian worldview.
What are some philosophical presuppositions of science?
– (1) The existence of a real, mind-independent, external world
• It’s real, objective, out there, outside our mind
– (2) The orderly nature of the external world
– (3) The know-ability of the external world
– (4) The existence of truth
• If there’s no truth, then how can you say that there are scientific truths
– (5) The laws of logic
• It uses deductions, inferences, and conclusions
– (6) The reliability of our senses and cognitive faculties (for acquiring truth)
– (7) The adequacy of language to describe the world
– (8) The existence of moral values (e.g., honesty, benevolence)
What is the problem of Induction, and how does it support the CWV?
• Problem of Induction: inductive reasoning presupposes “the uniformity of nature”.
– Introduced by David Hume
– Uniformity in time: nature will behave in the future in much the same way as in the past.
– Uniformity in space: nature behaves at one location in much the same way as at another.
• Option #6: Theological justification—uniformity is known because God is known.
• The uniformity of nature is rationally justified only in a TWV.
• Atheists living on borrowed capital (Van Til). Their philosophical checks are bouncing, and they are borrowing money from a different WV.
What are some arguments for Xianity from science?
– (1) Arguments for a temporally finite universe (e.g., background radiation- points to beginning). “The Goldie Locks Scenario”
– (2) Argument from the fine-tuning of the universe for both life, conscious life, and scientific observation.
– (3) Argument from irreducible complexity in biological systems.
– (4) Argument from information content in biological systems (esp. DNA- like a computer code). There must be a source of the information.
– (5) Argument from the natural limits of speciation.
What is the basic defense of the CWV Atheistic Arguments from Science?
• Basic approach: show that scientific objections to Christianity are based on non-Christian presuppositions (and thus beg the question against the Christian).
• Objection: “The scientific method assumes that nature is uniform, i.e., that there are no violations of the laws of nature. But Christianity claims that there are violations of the laws of nature—namely, miracles—so Christianity undermines the scientific method.”
It assumes that the laws of nature are inviolable. They are relying on induction from the CWV to make this assumption. The definition of miracles is Hume’s not the Bibles. The scientific method only needs to assume that nature is normally uniform. An occasional exception would not significantly affect the conclusions of science. It only tells how things normally or regularly occur.
• Objection: “There is overwhelming scientific evidence today in support of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which states that all life on earth is the product of natural evolutionary forces. But the Bible claims that all life on earth was specially created by God, so Christianity is incompatible with modern science.”
• Response #1: “Evolution” is frequently understood in different ways, and evidence for evolution in one sense isn’t necessarily evidence for evolution in other senses.
• Response #2: The evidence for Darwinian evolution can also be accommodated by non-Darwinian alternatives.
• Response #3: The evidence for Darwinian evolution is only compelling to those who have a prior commitment to methodological naturalism (i.e., the view that science can only appeal to naturalistic causes and explanations).
• Response #4: Our approach to scientific theorizing and our interpretation of scientific evidence is not worldview-neutral but rather worldview-conditioned. Christians have excellent independent reasons for holding a biblical worldview (as argued earlier) and for evaluating scientific theories and evidences in terms of that worldview.
• Objection: “The vast majority of scientists today accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Bible, so Christians are clearly at odds with modern science.”
History has shown that scientific consensus doesn't determine truth.
What is the basic Christian offense to the Darwinistic WV?
• Basic approach: show that Darwinism as a scientific theory fails by its own (scientific) standards and that Darwinism as a worldview undermines morality and rationality.
What are some scientific problems for the theory of evolution?
– (1) The lack of a viable mechanism for developing complex specified information
– (2) The origin of life (abiogenesis)
– (3) The origin of the genetic code (DNA)
– (4) The origin of multi-celled organisms
– (5) The origin of sexuality- You can’t develop male and female organisms in parallel. You need both- both make it harder.
– (6) The paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record
– (7) The absence of transitional organs in living organisms (‘nascent’ and ‘vestigial’)
– (8) The “Cambrian explosion” (rapid appearance of major animal groups)
– (9) The development of complex organ systems-
– (10) The development of irreducibly complex molecular machines (e.g., flagellum)
– (11) The development of similar structures by divergent paths (“convergent evolution”)
– (12) The conflicting reconstructions of the “Tree of Life” (phylogeny)-
• Since all of these phenomena are either highly improbable or difficult to explain if Darwinism is true, they constitute significant scientific evidence against Darwinism.