Podcast appearances and mentions of Alvin Plantinga

Alex is a Navy veteran, studying in exercise science, a rock climber, and holds to the philosophical theory of absurdism.  We talk about that and religion as well. In the conversation I mention Alex O'Connor (atheist), Gavin Ortlund (theist) as well as Alvin Plantinga (philosopher). This video on animal suffering mentions all 3, for anyone interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxUu4ncP-JM Alex

In this episode of the Ideology Podcast, Drew and Mick dive into the fascinating world of apologetics – the defense of the Christian faith through reason and argument. But this conversation is a bit different. Drew brings an ambivalent perspective, exploring the complexities of defending faith in a world full of competing truth claims.Why do some find apologetics helpful, and others, not so much? How do we navigate the tension between faith and reason, between historical evidence and personal belief? The episode explores these challenges and asks critical questions about the foundations of truth. Is apologetics a way to strengthen our faith, or could it inadvertently lead us to rely too heavily on human reason?Listen in as Drew and Mick unpack how we justify belief, from cosmological and teleological arguments to historical evidence of the resurrection. They also discuss Alvin Plantinga's ideas on "warranted Christian belief" and reflect on how personal experiences of God shape our understanding of truth.Connect with us:Email: ideologypc@gmail.comYoutube/Instagram: @ideologypcFeel free to share, subscribe, rate, and/or commentResources referenced:Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin PlantingaThe Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona

The Renaissance of Academic ApologeticsOver the past 40 years, we’ve witnessed a remarkable resurgence in academic apologetics. Influential philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig have made significant strides in defending Christian theism through rigorous analytical philosophy. This renaissance is not just about arguments; it’s about training the next generation of apologists. Institutions like the Society for Christian Philosophers and various seminaries are equipping students with the tools they need to engage thoughtfully with contemporary challenges to the faith. Cultural Apologetics: A New ApproachTraditional apologetics has focused on arguments for and against Christianity, but we must also consider the cultural landscape. Cultural apologetics seeks to establish a Christian voice within society, addressing the moral and intellectual climate that often hinders people from considering the Christian message. As Paul Hume articulates, it’s about making Christianity not just true but also satisfying. This approach is essential for reaching a generation that is increasingly skeptical and disengaged. The Role of Apologetics in Spiritual FormationApologetics should not be an isolated discipline; it must be integrated into the fabric of Christian life. Families, churches, and educational institutions should prioritize teaching apologetics as part of spiritual formation and evangelism. This means actively engaging with opposing worldviews and fostering a culture of inquiry and defense of the faith. By doing so, we prepare ourselves and our communities to articulate the hope we have in Christ. As we navigate the complexities of our world, it’s crucial to remember that the future of apologetics is ultimately in God’s hands. We are called to work diligently and smartly, making the case for our faith compellingly and lovingly. Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., is Distinguished University Research Professor of Apologetics and Christian Worldview at Cornerstone University and the author of twenty books, including Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (InterVarsity, 2024). Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

In this episode Eli looks at EAAN (Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) and answers the question, 'Can a presupper use this argument?'. EAAN is formulated by Alvin Plantinga who is known as one of the leading Christian philosophers alive today.

In this fourth installment on the Problem of Evil, Dr. Jacobs explores the complex relationship between divine providence and human freedom. What does it mean that God delegates subsovereignce to creation? And how does divine foreknowledge interact with human self-determination? Tune in as we examine biblical figures like Abraham, Job, and Saul alongside the desecration of goodness and the atheist's problem with evil. This episode lays crucial groundwork for understanding the synergistic nature of providence before our final exploration of theodicy.All the links: X: https://x.com/NathanJacobsPodSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0hSskUtCwDT40uFbqTk3QSApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nathan-jacobs-podcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thenathanjacobspodcastSubstack: https://nathanajacobs.substack.com/Website: https://www.nathanajacobs.com/Academia: https://vanderbilt.academia.edu/NathanAJacobs 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:13 The rational ordering principle00:13:17 What is the individual? 00:32:05 Divine foreknowledge 00:40:08 Abraham, Job, & Saul 00:52:06 Providence: blueprint or synergy? 01:01:29 The desecration of goodness01:08:28 The atheist's evil problem 01:18:51 So why doesn't God intervene? 01:34:30 God delegates subsovereignce  01:46:06 A critical feature of providence 01:49:51 What DOES God do? 01:56:49 The divine energies 02:16:40 The synergistic nature of providence 02:27:17 Engaging in self-determinationOther words for the algorithm… Leibniz, A defense of God, Epicurus, David Hume, Heraclitus, The Problem of Pain, The Problem of Divine Hiddenness, Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Orthodox Christian, Christianity, Evangelical, Protestant, Catholicism, Catholics, pantheism, Empedocles, body-soul dualism, metaphysical dualism, Manichaeism, Augustine of Hippo, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Nicene Creed, The Arian Dispute, Christology, Seven Ecumenical Councils, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Josiah Trenham, Jordan Peterson, Pints With Aquinas, Christian apologetics, theology, Alex O'Connor, John of Damascus, Alvin Plantinga, modal logic, Scholastics, the consequent will of God, Origen, complex goods, Theism, philosophy of religion, natural theology, moral philosophy, ontological argument, teleological argument, cosmological argument, ancient philosophy, patristics, church fathers, suffering, existentialism, free will, determinism, sovereignty, divine attributes, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, theological ethics, moral evil, natural evil, comparative religion, religious epistemology, divine justice, meaning of suffering, spiritual formation, rationalism, empiricism, atheism, agnosticism, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Bishop Barron, apologetics debate, philosophical theology, Thomas Aquinas, divine providence, spiritual warfare, eschatology, redemptive suffering, qualified omnipotence

Do you have a choice? Has God already decided if you're coming up or going down? In the book of Romans this idea is explored in chapter 9, and it is a very debated and misunderstood piece of Scripture. The church has been split between two opposing views, so where does Anabaptism stand in this minefield of opinion?Text us now. Let us know if you have questions about what this show is about.Support the showThanks for listening!Join the conversation onOur website, https://teleiostalkpodcast.buzzsprout.comTwitter, @TeleiosTFacebook, https://www.facebook.com/share/GF5fdop8prDoKfx5/Or, email us at teleiostalk@gmail.comOur Podcast is on YouTube and Rumble too!Check out our book "Six Good Questions"Please consider supporting our ministry.Donate using PayPal

If you have ever said, or heard someone say, "I could never worship a god who..." then this episode is for you. God is often accused of being evil and malevolent, wiping out whole cultures and societies. But is this the God of the Bible? I think it is time to find out.Watch this episodes for more discussions on this topicWhy Does God Allow Evil?https://youtu.be/PXIg6Qs-aXc?si=KNSMV39-dwtczj84"If God is all Powerful & Loving Why Do Evil Exist"?https://youtu.be/eAlv83JJy4k?si=ElwfqteEAn9D8MYIText us now. Let us know if you have questions about what this show is about.Support the showThanks for listening!Join the conversation on Twitter @TeleiosTOr, email us at teleiostalk@gmail.comOur Podcast is on YouTube and Rumble too!Check out our book "Six Good Questions"Please consider supporting our ministry.Donate using PayPal

IS THERE A ONE TRUE GOD OVERVIEW: There are many sources of information that people use to infer what might be true about God, including observation and revelation: Observation Some say that general observations of the universe support the existence of God, such as the idea of a non-eternal universe as shown by the Big Bang theory. Other observations that might support God's existence include the Earth's weather patterns, which some say are finely tuned to support human life, and the way nature works to form life. Revelation Some say that God may have entered the universe and told us true things about himself, morality, and how to have a relationship with him. This includes the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible also includes passages that some say indicate that God has made evidence of his existence so obvious that there is no excuse for denying him.  IS THERE PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE? The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion.[1] A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being or existence) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection"). The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments for the existence of a being responsible for fashioning the universe, referred to as the demiurge or the unmoved mover, that today would be categorized as cosmological arguments. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Thomas Aquinas, who presented his own version of the cosmological argument (the first way); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. Islamic philosophers who developed arguments for the existence of God comprise Averroes, who made arguments influenced by Aristotle's concept of the unmoved mover; Al-Ghazali and Al-Kindi, who presented the Kalam cosmological argument; Avicenna, who presented the Proof of the Truthful; and Al-Farabi, who made Neoplatonic arguments. In philosophy, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, atheism refers to the proposition that God does not exist.[2] Some religions, such as Jainism, reject the possibility of a creator deity. Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Bertrand Russell. Theism, the proposition that God exists, is the dominant view among philosophers of religion.[3] In a 2020 PhilPapers survey, 69.50% of philosophers of religion stated that they accept or lean towards theism, while 19.86% stated they accept or lean towards atheism.[4] Prominent contemporary philosophers of religion who defended theism include Alvin Plantinga, Yujin Nagasawa, John Hick, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig, while those who defended atheism include Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, Quentin Smith, J. L. Mackie, and J. L. Schellenberg. Traditional religious definition of God In classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple and sovereign being, who is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities), in distinction to other conceptions such as theistic personalism, open theism, and process theism. Classical theists do not believe that God can be completely defined. They believe it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him. Robert Barron explains by analogy that it seems impossible for a two-dimensional object to conceive of three-dimensional humans.[7] In modern Western societies, the concepts of God typically entail a monotheistic, supreme, ultimate, and personal being, as found in the Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions. In monotheistic religions outside the Abrahamic traditions, the existence of God is discussed in similar terms. In these traditions, God is also identified as the author (either directly or by inspiration) of certain texts, or that certain texts describe specific historical events caused by the God in question or communications from God (whether in direct speech or via dreams or omens). Some traditions also believe that God is the entity which is currently answering prayers for intervention or information or opinions. Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic scholar Many Islamic scholars have used philosophical and rational arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic scholar, philosopher, and physician, states there are only two arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are found in what he calls the "Precious Book" (The Qur'an). Rushd cites "providence" and "invention" in using the Qur'an's parables to claim the existence of God. Rushd argues that the Earth's weather patterns are conditioned to support human life; thus, if the planet is so finely-tuned to maintain life, then it suggests a fine tuner—God. The Sun and the Moon are not just random objects floating in the Milky Way, rather they serve us day and night, and the way nature works and how life is formed, humankind benefits from it. Rushd essentially comes to a conclusion that there has to be a higher being who has made everything perfectly to serve the needs of human beings.[8][9] Moses ben Maimon, widely known as Maimonides, was a Jewish scholar who tried to logically prove the existence of God. Maimonides offered proofs for the existence of God, but he did not begin with defining God first, like many others do. Rather, he used the description of the earth and the universe to prove the existence of God. He talked about the Heavenly bodies and how they are committed to eternal motion. Maimonides argued that because every physical object is finite, it can only contain a finite amount of power. If everything in the universe, which includes all the planets and the stars, is finite, then there has to be an infinite power to push forth the motion of everything in the universe. Narrowing down to an infinite being, the only thing that can explain the motion is an infinite being (meaning God) which is neither a body nor a force in the body. Maimonides believed that this argument gives us a ground to believe that God is, not an idea of what God is. He believed that God cannot be understood or be compared.[10] Non-personal definitions of God In pantheism, God and the universe are considered to be the same thing. In this view, the natural sciences are essentially studying the nature of God. This definition of God creates the philosophical problem that a universe with God and one without God are the same, other than the words used to describe it. Deism and panentheism assert that there is a God distinct from, or which extends beyond (either in time or in space or in some other way) the universe. These positions deny that God intervenes in the operation of the universe, including communicating with humans personally. The notion that God never intervenes or communicates with the universe, or may have evolved into the universe (as in pandeism), makes it difficult, if not by definition impossible, to distinguish between a universe with God and one without. The Ethics of Baruch Spinoza gave two demonstrations of the existence of God.[11] The God of Spinoza is uncaused by any external force and has no free will, it is not personal and not anthropomorphic. Debate about how theism should be argued In Christian faith, theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between: (a) preambles of faith and (b) articles of faith.[12] The preambles include alleged truths contained in revelation which are nevertheless demonstrable by reason, e.g., the immortality of the soul, the existence of God. The articles of faith, on the other hand, contain truths that cannot be proven or reached by reason alone and presuppose the truths of the preambles, e.g., in Christianity, the Holy Trinity, is not demonstrable and presupposes the existence of God. The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even prior to exposure to any divine revelation, predates Christianity.[clarification needed] Paul the Apostle made this argument when he said that pagans were without excuse because "since the creation of the world God's invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made".[13] In this, Paul alludes to the proofs for a creator, later enunciated by Thomas Aquinas[14] and others, that had also been explored by the Greek philosophers. Another apologetical school of thought, including Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, and Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til felt "transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach is that the presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, presuppositionalists do not believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted, or "brute" facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. They attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the transcendental necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school uses what have come to be known as transcendental arguments. These arguments claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility. Protestant Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "salvation is by faith",[15] and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in its existence would become superfluous. Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans.[citation needed] It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his mentor Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by a "leap of faith". This position is also sometimes called presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety. THE HISTORICAL JESUS According to Christianity, Jesus is the Son of God as chronicled in the Bible's New Testament, and in most Christian denominations He is held to be God the Son, a prosopon (Person) of the Trinity of God. Christians believe him to be the messiah, or a saviour (giving him the title Christ), who was prophesied in the Bible's Old Testament. Through Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, Christians believe that God offers humans salvation and eternal life,[1] with Jesus's death atoning for all sin, thus making humanity right with God. The commonly held belief among Christians is the phrase, "Jesus died for your sins," and thus they accept that salvation is only possible through him.[2] These teachings emphasize that as the Lamb of God, Jesus chose to suffer nailed to the cross at Calvary as a sign of his obedience to the will of God, as an "agent and servant of God".[3][4] Jesus's choice positions him as a man of obedience, in contrast to Adam's disobedience.[5] According to the New Testament, after God raised him from the dead,[6] Jesus ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father,[7] with his followers awaiting his return to Earth and God's subsequent Last Judgment.[8] According to the gospel accounts, Jesus was born of a virgin, instructed other Jews how to follow God (sometimes using parables), performed miracles and gathered disciples. Christians generally believe that this narrative is historically true. While there has been theological debate over the nature of Jesus, Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is the Logos, God incarnate (God in human form), God the Son, and "true God and true man"—fully divine and fully human. Jesus, having become fully human in all respects, suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man, yet he did not sin.

This episode is from our 2022 Spring lecture series Deconstruction & Reconstruction. Watch the video version here: https://youtu.be/H-6cPH6AHxk Recommended Resources Grounding Your Faith in the Essentials “Warranted Christian Belief” by Alvin Plantinga: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059EQ4DY “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G5M1BFK “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Michael Licona: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LUJDNE Knowing the Landscape of Secondary Issues “A […]

This episode is from our 2022 Spring lecture series Deconstruction & Reconstruction. Watch the video version here: https://youtu.be/H-6cPH6AHxk Recommended Resources Grounding Your Faith in the Essentials “Warranted Christian Belief” by Alvin Plantinga: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059EQ4DY “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G5M1BFK “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Michael Licona: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LUJDNE Knowing the Landscape of Secondary Issues “A […]

This is from our 2022 Spring lecture series Deconstruction & Reconstruction. Video version here: https://youtu.be/UrairX8aTTU Note: This video has been slightly edited for length and clarity. Recommended Resources Grounding Your Faith in the Essentials “Warranted Christian Belief” by Alvin Plantinga: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059EQ4DY “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G5M1BFK “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Michael Licona: […]

This is from our 2022 Spring lecture series Deconstruction & Reconstruction. Video version here: https://youtu.be/UrairX8aTTU Note: This video has been slightly edited for length and clarity. Recommended Resources Grounding Your Faith in the Essentials “Warranted Christian Belief” by Alvin Plantinga: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059EQ4DY “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G5M1BFK “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Michael Licona: […]

This episode is from our 2022 Spring lecture series Deconstruction & Reconstruction. Watch here: https://youtu.be/S3VzNd7RY3Q Recommended Resources Grounding Your Faith in the Essentials “Warranted Christian Belief” by Alvin Plantinga: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059EQ4DY “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G5M1BFK “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Michael Licona: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LUJDNE Knowing the Landscape of Secondary Issues “A Flexible Faith” by […]

This episode is from our 2022 Spring lecture series Deconstruction & Reconstruction. Watch here: https://youtu.be/S3VzNd7RY3Q Recommended Resources Grounding Your Faith in the Essentials “Warranted Christian Belief” by Alvin Plantinga: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059EQ4DY “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G5M1BFK “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Michael Licona: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LUJDNE Knowing the Landscape of Secondary Issues “A Flexible Faith” by […]

The Founders Of Reformed Apologetics We complete our journey of the giants of presuppositionalism and the roots by looking at the biggest founders of Reformed apologetics that are known today. Abraham Kyper establishes the possibility of certainty of faith. Herman Dooyeweerd develops transcendental apologetics. Cornelius Van Til cements presuppositionalism. Gordon Clark takes the strand away from VanTil with deductive presuppositionalism. Finally, we get to a living person with Alvin Plantinga and his warrant for Christian belief. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 02:15 - Abraham Kuyper - Dutch Presuppositionalism & Certainty Of Faith 10:00 - Kuyper On Unbelievers' Beliefs 13:43 - Herman Dooyeweerd Developed Transcendental Apologetics 19:31 - Cornelius Van Til - Father Of Presuppositionalism 22:31 - Van Til's Apologetic Approach 24:20 - Gordon Clark - Deductive Presuppositionalism 27:49 - Alvin Plantinga - Showing Christianity Is Ok To Believe In 35:47 - Warranted Christian Belief & Defeating The Defeaters 41:48 - Presuppositionalists Giants Standing On Their Shoulders 45:03 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Faith Has Its Reasons By Kenneth Boa & Robert M. Bowman Jr. Kindle Paperback Logos

The Free Will Defence is commonly known as the argument which defeated the logical problem of evil. In this video, I introduce you to the variations of the argument, the ideas found within, common objections, and some responses that one may have to defend this position. Support the show--------------------------If you would want to support the channel and what I am doing, please follow me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/christianityforall Where else to find Josh Yen: Philosophy YT: https://bit.ly/philforallEducation: https://bit.ly/joshyenBuisness: https://bit.ly/logoseduMy Website: https://joshuajwyen.com/

Ciência e religião não se misturam, cada uma deve ficar em seu quadrado. Na sessão de hoje de nosso RPG de apologética, partimos para a terra desolada do embate entre ciência e religião e temos a grata surpresa de encontrar que talvez o real inimigo da ciência não seja o teísmo cristão, e sim o naturalismo evolucionário. Veja uma transcrição deste episódio em nosso ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠blog.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Na Pilgrim você também pode ler a obra de Alvin Plantinga sobre ciência e religião. Se você gostou deste episodio, compartilhe o Em Suma, um produto gratuito da Pilgrim, para que possamos continuar financiando este trabalho. _____ PARA SE APROFUNDAR Alvin Plantinga. Conhecimento e crença cristã Alvin Plantinga. Ciência e religião: são compatíveis? Alvin Plantinga. Crença cristã avalizada. Alvin Plantinga. Ciência, religião e naturalismo: onde está o conflito? _____ JÁ CONHECE A PILGRIM? A nossa plataforma oferece acesso a conteúdos cristãos de qualidade no formato que você preferir. Na Pilgrim você encontra audiolivros, ebooks, palestras, resumos, livros impressos e artigos para cada momento do seu dia e da sua vida: https://thepilgrim.com.br/ _____ SEJA PILGRIM PREMIUM Seja um assinante da Pilgrim e tenha acesso a mais de 10.000 livros, cursos, artigos e muito mais em uma única assinatura mensal: https://thepilgrim.com.br/seja-um-assinante Quais as vantagens? Acesso aos originais Pilgrim + Download ilimitado para ouvir offline + Acesso a mais de 10.000 títulos! + Frete grátis na compra de livros impressos em nossa loja _____ SIGA A PILGRIM No Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pilgrim.app/ no Twitter: https://twitter.com/AppPilgrim no TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@pilgrimapp e no YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy1lBN2eNOdL_dJtKnQZlCw Entre em contato através do contato@thepilgrim.com.br. Em suma é um podcast original Pilgrim. Todos os direitos reservados. O ponto de vista deste texto é de responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es) e colaboradores diretos, não refletindo necessariamente a posição da Pilgrim ou de sua equipe de profissionais. _____ SIGA-ME NAS REDES SOCIAIS No Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theolo.gui/ No Twitter: https://twitter.com/GCPdf

“O Espiritismo é uma filosofia”: eis uma frase que todos estamos acostumados a ouvir. Mas o que isso quer dizer? E como se pode ter uma filosofia baseada em uma revelação espiritual? E se é filosofia, como ele dialoga com outras correntes de pensamento e com os estudos acadêmicos dessa área do conhecimento? Essa e muitas outras perguntas são tratadas no livro “Vida, Morte, Vida: Uma Introdução à Filosofia do Espiritismo”, do professor Rodolfo Jacarandá (UNIR), que esteve conosco em 2021 e é também membro do Cast dos Espíritos. Neste episódio, conversamos sobre história da Filosofia, epistemologia, ética, a influência do pensamento católico sobre o Espiritismo e vários outros tópicos de interesse.   Algumas das obras indicadas ou que se relacionam aos autores citados no episódio: Uma Breve Introdução à Filosofia, de Thomas Nagel. A República, de Platão: Fédon, de Platão: Ciência, Religião e Naturalismo: Onde Está o Conflito?, de Alvin Plantinga. 10 Lições sobre Wittgenstein, de Gerson Francisco Arruda Jr. O Que Jesus Disse? O Que Jesus não Disse?, de Bart Ehrman. História da Filosofia Grega e Romana, Vol. VIII: Plotino e o Neoplatonismo, de Giovanni Reale. A Bíblia Desenterrada, de Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman.

Several years ago, Max McLean and the Fellowship for Performing Arts staged The Most Reluctant Convert, a play about the life of C.S. Lewis up to his conversion. During the Covid shutdowns, that production was made into a film that received strong reviews. Now, McLean and FPA are offering a follow-up stage production dealing with Lewis's life post-conversion.   Although Further Up and Further In includes some biographical information, such as the writing of The Problem of Pain and the recording of the BBC talks that were later published in Mere Christianity, this new production takes the much more challenging route of exploring the different aspects of Lewis's ministry. Not surprisingly, much of the production is focused on his apologetics.  In his day, the great challenge to Christianity was materialism, the idea that everything is just matter and energy. Lewis responded to this by tracing out the implications of that view and showing its utter implausibility. He notes that scientists “observe the behavior of things within the universe. They cannot make statements about things beyond the universe.” Any time a scientist does that, for example by proclaiming that matter and energy are all that exist, he is no longer doing science.  Even more, Lewis says, if materialism is true, there is no reason to trust the scientist doing science. After all, he rightly observed,   If the materialist view is true, our minds must in reality be merely chance arrangements of atoms in skulls. We never think a thought because it is true, only because blind Nature forces us to think it. We never do an act because it is right, only because blind Nature forces us to do it.   This argument, which can also be found in slightly different form in the work of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, is a powerful response to atheism. If atheism is true, any foundation for trusting science or human reason is undermined.  Rather than defend a particular denomination of Christianity, Lewis believed that “the only service [he] could do for [his] unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians and at all times.” This led him to write The Problem of Pain and from there to do his broadcast talks for the BBC. As a result, he began receiving massive numbers of letters. Though he dismissed some, he felt obligated to respond to any serious inquiries received. Some evenings after work, Lewis wrote up to 35 letters.   Much of Further Up and Further In is adapted from volume two of Lewis' collected letters, a 1,152-page tome. Through an adaptation of some of these letters, we see his work as an evangelist. For example, in the play, a young atheist contacts Lewis with questions, and Lewis responds. After a series of exchanges, the young atheist decides to take the step of committing himself to Christ. Lewis responds with advice on how to grow in faith and hang on to it through doubts. In the end, Lewis argues, “It all hinges on Jesus. If His statements are false, Christianity is of no importance. If true, it is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”   As a literary scholar, Lewis anticipated the argument that the Gospels cannot be trusted, pointing out that the Gospels include statements that would hardly be expected if they were made up by people trying to prove the divinity of Jesus. Rather, the difficulties that they pose are solid evidence for the truthfulness of the Gospels' accounts of Jesus's teaching.  Toward the end of Further Up and Further In, the character of Lewis turns his focus to Christians, offering advice on temptation (something he had discussed in The Screwtape Letters), the crucial importance of prayer, the Second Coming and the end of the world, and heaven. Much of this advice remains as helpful today as when he first offered it.  Once again, Max McLean and the Fellowship for Performing Arts shows why Lewis's popularity and value have endured. Further Up and Further In is currently on tour. How Lewis engaged the materialists of his time is a model for engaging people today who, though coming from a different worldview, seem just as unable to acknowledge the reality that God has made known in His world.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

O mais notável filósofo cristão contemporâneo e o mais notável filósofo ateu contemporâneo, Alvin Plantinga e Daniel C. Dennett, num debate que nos ajuda a pensar e responder criticamente: Ciência e Religião – São Compatíveis? Uma leitura fascinante, tanto como porta de entrada para a filosofia da religião e para a terminologia filosófica, como para o suposto conflito entre criação e evolução. O cristianismo é compatível com a teoria evolucionária? A evolução é ateísta? Ciência e Religião – São Compatíveis? é o primeiro volume da série Filosofia e Fé Cristã, que reúne dez volumes de filosofia da religião e teologia filosófica para tornar conhecidos livros, autores e algumas das grandes questões da fé cristã.

Hoje é dia de série nova no Em Suma! Teremos uma aventura alucinante pelas terras da apologética. De Tomás de Aquino a Cornelius Van Til, de Alvin Plantinga a Agostinho, de William Lane Craig a Gary Habermas, iremos conhecer os principais personagens, objeções, argumentos e escolas da defesa da fé. E tudo isso de forma descontraída como se estivéssemos interpretando diferentes papéis em um jogo de RPG. Venha conhecer a nossa Mesa em que damos razão da esperança que há em nós! Veja uma transcrição deste episódio em nosso ⁠⁠blog.⁠⁠ Na Pilgrim você também pode ler uma das melhores obras de apologética da atualidade. Se você gostou deste episodio, compartilhe o Em Suma, um produto gratuito da Pilgrim, para que possamos continuar financiando este trabalho. _____ PARA SE APROFUNDAR G.K. Chesterton. “Why I believe in Christianity”. Reimpresso em The Religious Doubts of Democracy (1904) e “The Blatchford Controversies” (in The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, Vol. 1). Gavin Ortlund. Por que Deus faz sentido em um mundo que não faz mais. Tim Keller. Deus na era secular. _____ JÁ CONHECE A PILGRIM? A nossa plataforma oferece acesso a conteúdos cristãos de qualidade no formato que você preferir. Na Pilgrim você encontra audiolivros, ebooks, palestras, resumos, livros impressos e artigos para cada momento do seu dia e da sua vida: https://thepilgrim.com.br/ _____ SEJA PILGRIM PREMIUM Seja um assinante da Pilgrim e tenha acesso a mais de 10.000 livros, cursos, artigos e muito mais em uma única assinatura mensal: https://thepilgrim.com.br/seja-um-assinante Quais as vantagens? Acesso aos originais Pilgrim + Download ilimitado para ouvir offline + Acesso a mais de 10.000 títulos! + Frete grátis na compra de livros impressos em nossa loja _____ SIGA A PILGRIM No Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pilgrim.app/ no Twitter: https://twitter.com/AppPilgrim no TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@pilgrimapp e no YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy1lBN2eNOdL_dJtKnQZlCw Entre em contato através do contato@thepilgrim.com.br. Em suma é um podcast original Pilgrim. Todos os direitos reservados. O ponto de vista deste texto é de responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es) e colaboradores diretos, não refletindo necessariamente a posição da Pilgrim ou de sua equipe de profissionais. _____ SIGA-ME NAS REDES SOCIAIS No Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theolo.gui/ No Twitter: https://twitter.com/GCPdf

In episode 227 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined by Dr. Greg Welty to discuss his new book on Alvin Plantinga in the P&R Great Thinkers series. We start off by discussing the nature of philosophy and Christian philosophy, then Dr. Welty gives us a brief intro to Plantinga and his thought, then we dive in deep on the logical and evidential problems of evil and recount the ways in which Alvin Plantinga sought to solve them. Read the forward, preface, and first chapter of the new book here: https://www.prpbooks.com/book/alvin-plantinga and grab the book here to support my podcast: https://amzn.to/3lbjxRL If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/0:00 - A thanks from me 3:17 - What is Philosophy? 7:00 - What is Christian Philosophy? 11:59 - Two Kinds of Christian Philosophers 15:49 - Who is Alvin Plantinga? 23:37 - Swinburne vs. Plantinga 32:26 - Logical Problem of Evil 41:26 - Theodicy vs. Defense? 52:00 - Evidential Problem of Evil 1:01:08 - O Felix Culpa Theodicy 1:13:40 - Supporting the Claim "God Exists"

Jordan talks with Greg Welty about the life and thought of Alvin Platinga. They cover topics like who is Plantinga, why is he important? What is Platinga's model of faith and reason? How is it similar to John Owen's? Did Plantinga reference Owen at all? What is Plantinga's free will defense? Should Reformed Christians find it useful or plausible? What did Plantinga think about the divine attributes? Why did he reject classical theism? Was this important for his overall philosophical project? And more!Resources:1) Alvin Plantinga, Greg Welty2) Why is There Evil in the World (and So Much of It)?, Greg WeltySupport the show

Episode 196 – Eternal Information – Part 4 –Information and Apologetics Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: That which you worship, then, even though you do not know it, is what I now proclaim to you. God, who made the world and everything in it …” Acts, Chapter 17, verses 23 and 24, Good News Translation ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re very grateful that you are joining us on Anchored by Truth as we continue the series which we are calling “Eternal Information.” Like several of the other series that we have done on Anchored by Truth this “Eternal Information” series pertains to a subject that has special importance in our day and time – demonstrating that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. Today in the studio we have RD who is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, we spend a lot of time on Anchored by Truth discussing topics that don’t seem to be as relevant to the Christian faith as, say, family relationships, struggles with addiction, or even the wise use of money. Why do you feel led to go into what some may regard as side issues that don’t affect people’s daily lives? RD: Well, that’s a very good question. But before I answer it I’d also like to thank everyone joining us on Anchored by Truth. The biggest reason I think we need to do series like “Eternal Information” is very simple. We need to return to the reality that the Christian faith isn’t just appealing or helpful – but it is true. We live in what many term a “post-modern” culture. The post-modern culture not only doesn’t believe that the Christian faith is true. The post-modern culture denies the existence of truth altogether. Post-modernism tells us things like “that may be true for you but that’s not true for me.” VK: You might say that the primary slogan for our post-modern world is that “there is no such thing as absolute truth.” But as we have pointed out in previous episodes the statement “there is no such thing as absolute truth” is self-contradictory. The proponent of the statement wants us accept his proclamation as if it were absolutely true. So, anyone who bases their worldview on that proposition has a house built on intellectual quicksand. It’s not only not stable it’s deadly. RD: Exactly right. But that mantra, that there is no such thing as absolute truth, surrounds us today and if we don’t begin to reverse the widespread acceptance of that silliness there is little to no chance we can reverse the decline in our culture. The only way we can begin to reclaim virtue for our society is to reclaim the historic reliance that western civilization placed on a Christian worldview and value set. We must start with the truth if we are going to repel the lies we are being told. And the truth is that the Bible is demonstrably the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. VK: That word “demonstrable” is important. In our day and time it’s not enough for Christians to just believe the Bible is the Word of God. That’s necessary but it’s not sufficient to impact our culture. The question “how can we be sure God exists” is a reasonable question. And so is the question “how can you be sure the Bible is God’s word.” And 1 Peter 3:15 commands us to be able to give reasonable answers to those questions. RD: Yes. 1 Peter 3:15 is probably the most commonly cited Bible verse for why Christians need to obtain a least a basic understanding of what is usually termed “apologetics.” VK: Apologetics is a broad umbrella term for the reason we thought this series about information is important. Apologetics can broadly be defined as “a defense for our faith.” Apologetics comes from a compound Greek word. Greek, like English, has compound words made of two or more other words. In this case the Greek words are apo, primarily used to mean “from;” and logos, primarily meaning, in its most generic sense, “word.” Logos is also commonly used in an expanded way to mean “reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, and calculating.” The Greek philosopher Heraclitus [HAIR-AH-KLEYE-TUS] first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. The Apostle John’s used that same word logos in John 1:1 when John said, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” RD: Right. So, on this episode of Anchored by Truth I wanted to just spend a little more time making sure that we connect the concept of information with this whole notion of the “defense of the Christian Faith.” So, one issue I would like to deal with right away is the whole notion that apologetics is really not necessary. We often say that God is the only One who can change a human heart. If that’s true then many people don’t see a need for us humans to actually try to defend the faith. After all, if conversion is up to God all we should have to do is just tell people about God and Jesus and that should be enough. VK: And some Christians would say that in some of the best known verses about sharing the gospel there is no mention of apologetics. Romans, chapter 10, verses 14 and 15 say, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?” That’s from the New International Version. Those verses clearly talk about us sending and preaching so others can hear and believe but they don’t say anything about “defending the faith.” RD: True enough, but those verses are part of a larger discussion by the Apostle Paul about the difference between the Jews believing they can be saved by the law as opposed to being saved by faith in Jesus. The larger point that Paul was making was that Paul’s people the Jews were zealous in wanting to know God but they had drifted into thinking that a zeal for the law was sufficient for God to accept them. Paul was trying to clarify that no amount of zealousness for the law was sufficient to make us acceptable to God. To be saved by the law we would have to keep the law perfectly. VK: Which no human being apart from Jesus has ever done, or could do. RD: Right. No human being can be saved by our own works because none of us can keep the law perfectly. Jesus did keep the law perfectly which qualified Him to be a fit representative for those of us who can’t. So, the point Paul was making when he talked about sending and preaching was that all believers have a responsibility to share our faith with others. In those verses from Romans, Paul was describing the need for us to “preach” but he was not prescribing the content of our preaching. Elsewhere, as in Acts chapter 17 shows very clearly that he used logic and reason in his own preaching. In talking to the assembly on the Areopagus he began his message with an appeal for the Athenians to think about “The God who made the world and everything in it…” In effect Paul was using a form of what is often termed the cosmological argument. VK: Wikipedia defines the cosmological argument as “… an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.” So, in slightly different words the cosmological argument is an argument based on the existence of the cosmos. RD: Yes. The cosmological argument is one form of what is sometimes termed “classical apologetics.” And I think it is likely the most common form of apologetic argument since it so easy to understand and it begins with a starting point that people have to agree with. We exist. The universe exists. Careful observations about the universe such as the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us the universe is not eternal. Basic reason tells us that anything that is not eternal cannot account for its own existence. Anything that is self-existent, that is which possesses the power of existence unto and all by itself, would have to be eternal because a self-existent entity cannot go out of existence. Since the universe cannot provide an explanation for its own existence, it is reasonable to go looking for an explanation for the reason the universe exists outside of the universe. At any rate, the point is that the Apostle Paul was clearly a skilled apologist and he used apologetics in his own preaching. So, in those verses from Romans that you cited Paul was not dismissing the need for apologetics. He was simply stressing the need for us to be active in spreading the gospel to bring salvation to as many people as possible. In Romans Paul was talking about the necessity for evangelism but not the content of evangelism. VK: So, in this series, and in many of the others that we’ve done on Anchored by Truth, we are discussing the content of the evangelistic message. And the point we are making is that good apologetics should be one component of an evangelistic message. Evangelism cannot be limited to apologetics. Apologetics is primarily aimed at the mind. But good evangelism also has to address the needs of the heart. In some ways the heart’s needs are more urgent for most people. So, we must always be prepared to address those as well. People need to know that Jesus brings forgiveness of sins because without that people have no effective way of dealing with the guilt that we all feel. People need to know that Jesus loves them. The desire to be cherished and valued is basic to all human beings. And people need to know that God wants them to be included in His family. People need to know that they belong. All those and more are heart needs. And we certainly don’t want to minimize their importance. But just as it is important to address the heart needs we must also not forget about the head. RD: Exactly. The church must address the whole person just as Jesus commanded in Mark 12:30 where he told his listeners that they must, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” Jesus wasn’t trying to take an inventory of human anatomy and physiology there. He was telling his listeners that they had to devote all of themselves to God. VK: After all, God devoted all of Himself to us when the 2nd person of the Trinity took on a human body and then sacrificed Himself for us. RD: Yes. So, God gave His all to us and we must give our all to Him. It’s important to note that in his admonition Jesus included a reference to the “mind” as well as to the heart, soul, and strength. In looking at apologetic approaches that’s what we are doing. And that’s where I think that this discussion of information becomes valuable. I see it as a supplement to many of the other approaches that have been used throughout church history. VK: I see where you’re going with this. There are at least three apologetic arguments that are termed classical apologetics. The cosmological argument is one of those. As you’ve said the cosmological argument is possibly the best known and easiest to understand. But there is also the teleological [TEAL-EE-AH-LODGE-EH-KAL] argument. The teleological argument is an argument based on design or purpose. The teleological argument demonstrates the existence of God by beginning with the observation of purpose in nature. The teleological argument reasons that design cannot exist without a Designer. And classical apologetics also includes what is called the ontological [ON-TOE-LODGE-EH-KAL] argument. But I’m not even going to attempt to explain that. RD: Yeah. I don’t blame you. The ontological argument is probably the most esoteric of the classical arguments. Ontology is the study of “being.” If something exists it is sometimes said to have “ontological status.” I think the easiest way to think about ontology is to just distinguish between the real and the imaginary. So, the ontological argument is based on the idea that anything that is real is better than something that is imaginary. VK: I think there are some people in the movie business that might disagree with you. RD: True. But even movie makers make real movies. An imaginary movie might be great but it doesn’t sell any tickets. And that’s the essential idea behind the ontological argument. We can conceive of a perfect being. Now our individual ideas of the perfect being might vary a bit but we can all conceive of a perfect being. But if that perfect being were only imaginary it wouldn’t be nearly as good as a real perfect being. Furthermore, it is obvious that all human beings as well as every other living creature are dependent beings. We depend on air, water, food, sunlight, etc. for our existence. The same thing is true for inanimate structures like stars. They depend on the availability of fuel to continue to burn. Well, there must be an ultimate source which supplies what all those dependent entities need to maintain their existence. That Something or Someone must be completely independent of need. Philosophers refer to that entity as a Necessary Being. That Necessary Being then would be perfect because it (He) would be able to provide for the existence of everything else. So, the ontological argument essentially recognizes that that Necessary Being is the Perfect Being that we all conceive of. And again, an imaginary perfect being would not have any ontological status so it couldn’t supply the needs of anything. There have been many different formulations of the ontological argument down through the years and they can get pretty esoteric. If someone wants to look further I would suggest they look an Anselm, Descartes, or more recently the American philosopher, Alvin Plantinga. VK: As you said, that’s all pretty esoteric. RD: But it does point out something important. Despite the claims of the evolutionists life on this earth cannot account for its own existence. The universe cannot account for its own existence. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics tells us that someday the universe will burn itself out. And even those people who believe in the Big Bang have no explanation for how the original singularity came into existence. So, they usually resort to saying things like, “the laws of physics tell us how something can come from nothing.” Well, no they don’t. Because if there was ever time when nothing existed there wouldn’t have been any “laws of physics.” And that’s the problem with all explanations for existence that attempt to exclude God. They always wind up in a place where they have unanswered questions and their advocates tell us that we just have to live with those questions. VK: And therein lies the role for apologetics. Apologetics leads us through the questions and ultimately supplies the answers to those questions that can’t come from anywhere else. Now we can live our whole lives and never ask the questions. Or we can live our lives and simply suppress our desire for the answers. But ultimately neither one of those approaches satisfies us. God built human beings with an innate curiosity because that curiosity will always lead us back to our need for Him. RD: I agree. And that is what our examination of information does. It leads us back to God. As we talked about in our first two episodes in this series, information is a non-material component of the created order that is not generated by, dependent upon, or impacted by matter, energy, time, or space. Because information is non-material and is unaffected by matter or energy it is logically impossible to attribute the presence of information to matter or energy. But that’s all atheists or anyone who denies the existence of God has to work with. For them they’re surrounded only by physical phenomena so they must find some way to attribute everything that they come across in their experience to an origin in matter or energy. In a previous episode we saw that there are actually laws of information that act exactly like other natural laws with which we’re more familiar like the law of gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics. But these other natural laws can be framed in terms of matter and energy. Information cannot. VK: So, the atheist is now stuck with a conundrum. How can material phenomena produce a non-material phenomenon that can describe the material but remain unaffected by the material? For Christians, and even other theists, the conundrum doesn’t exist. God produced the cosmos ex nihilo – from nothing other than his own ineffable power. RD: Yes. The nature of the physical universe itself points us to a power that must lie beyond the universe. Information is another one of the many attributes of the universe that supports that basic line of reasoning. In that sense it forms another and very powerful argument for the existence of God. VK: Which is what all apologetic approaches do. But that does not mean that all apologetic approaches are equal – or equally suitable for use in evangelistic settings. And we haven’t touched on all the apologetic arguments that are out there. We’ve only touched on a few. RD: Yep. Besides the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments – which are considered “classical apologetics” there are people who favor a moral argument. Others prefer a historical approach to demonstrating God’s necessary existence. VK: The moral argument was used by CS Lewis in his classic work Mere Christianity. It essentially says that we all feel the presence of certain obligations that should govern our behavior – moral laws if you will. But the existence of a law requires a Law Giver. Historical apologetics points to events in world history, such as the resurrection, as evidence that the God of the Bible is actively involved in our world and its affairs. For instance, regarding evidence for the historicity of the resurrection, British historian, A. N. Sherwin-White has written that “For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. … any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted…” Many other historians have come to similar conclusions about parts of the Bible as diverse as Isaiah, Daniel, Kings, and Chronicles. RD: Yes. And there are still other forms of apologetics such as pre-suppositional apologetics and transcendental apologetics that we don’t have the time or need to cover. But all apologetic approaches share something in common. They start with an observation about the universe or world history that can’t be reasonably denied. Then they proceed to look for an explanation of the attribute or phenomenon they have observed. Inevitably they find that a satisfactory explanation cannot be contained within the four corners of the visible universe. So, as we have said, we can simply throw up our hands at that point and proclaim that there is no possible explanation or we can follow the considerable affirmative evidence, such as the reliability of scripture that points to the existence of God. VK: Apologetics is a little like the classic murder mystery where the murder was seemingly committed in a locked room where there is no immediate evidence of any way the murderer could have entered or left. Then the clever detective arrives and finds that there’s a previously unknown, hidden panel that they discovered by a careful analysis of the room’s dimensions. Or there’s a bit of wax on the floor that shows where the window latch dropped back into place after the murderer left through the window. Or a scratch on floor shows that the key on the inside was really on the outside when the door was locked. The detective always finds the clue overlooked by everyone else to divine the truth. RD: Yep. Except that in this case the evidence isn’t hard to discern. It’s out there in plain sight for everyone to see. It has to be. If God had hidden evidence of himself people might have a legitimate excuse for their unbelief. But they don’t. Romans, chapter 1, verses 18 through 20 say, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” VK: And Psalm 19, verses 1 and 2 say, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.” RD: So, as in your detective example, the universe contains clues, more than clues really, that point to the fact that there is a God who made everything, sustains everything, and governs everything. Information is one more phenomenon within creation that points out that the universe cannot be explained simply by its material elements – matter, energy, time, and space. The universe exhibits design in its smallest elements such as the atom to its largest structures such as galaxies. Design needs a Designer. The universe needed a power source to get it going because it is steadily running out of power. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that. Life would not exist at all if DNA did not contain an embedded program that tells the various base pairs, genes, and motors how to operate to both operate and replicate. The program embedded within DNA is another form of information. In fact, DNA is most sophisticated data storage and use structure we know about within the universe. But how did that information get into the DNA? The cells’ protein machines can’t explain the information because without DNA the cells wouldn’t know how to make the machines. But without the machines to build the DNA it couldn’t hold, store, or transmit the information. The answer of course is that God created everything, installed the programs, and continues to sustain all that He created. We can accept or reject that conclusion but we can’t avoid the facts that point to it. VK: So, again, the big idea that we are discussing is that information is another line of evidence that proves that if God did not exist the universe could not appear as we see it. Information is non-material and information always exhibits order, organization, specificity, and purpose. And those things require intelligence. Well, our thought-provoking journey continues. This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer that our nation would experience a renewed hunger for the One who formed the universe and who put His presence into both its largest and smallest structures. ---- PRAYER FOR RESTORATION OF THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the Good News Translation) Acts, Chapter 17, verses 23 and 24, Good News Translation Laws of information 1 (creation.com) Laws of information 2 (creation.com) We are less than dust (creation.com) https://www.josh.org/what-is-the-design-argument-for-gods-existence/

Scripture Reading: John 14:1-14 1 “Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 There are many dwelling places in my Father's house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you. 3 And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. 4 And you know the way where I am going.”5 Thomas said, “Lord, we don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” 9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long and yet you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves. 12 I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.Main ThemesMany Dwelling Places in my Father's HouseAddressing the Group—FarewellThe chapter opens with Jesus shifting his attention from Peter individually to all his disciples (evident in the shift to plural pronouns and verbs). He says, “Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me.” This is clearly a farewell speech. Jesus is saying goodbye. Keeping that in mind, we need to pay attention to what Jesus chooses to highlight as his final words.Indicative Versus ImperativeThe sentence translated as “you believe in God; believe also in me” includes two identical uses of the word believe. That verb can be translated as indicative or imperative. Therefore, translators have to pick between the translation above (which uses the indicative first and then the imperative), or a translation that uses both verbs consistently, such as “believe in God, believe also in me.” The same sentence can even be translated as a rhetorical question and its corresponding response: “Do you believe in God? Believe also in me.” There is no major change in the passage's meaning. The disciples must believe in God and in Jesus. The fact that Jesus makes himself an object of faith is noteworthy. At the very least Jesus is making himself equal with Moses. Recall Exodus 14:31, “When Israel saw the great power that the Lord had exercised over the Egyptians, they feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses.” At most, Jesus is making himself equal with the Father himself since God and only God is the ultimate proper recipient of faith.Homes Now or Homes TomorrowWhat is the Father's House?Jesus then tells the disciples where he is going: to “make ready a place for [the disciples]” in the “Father's house,” which has many “dwelling places.” To understand Jesus' words, let's begin by asking, what is the Father's house? Both in Old Testament and New Testament times, God's temple was referred to as his house. Consider Haggai 1:2, “Thus says the Lord of hosts: These people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord.” Or recall Ecclesiastes 5:1, “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God.” In the New Testament, Jesus himself uses that language. Consider Jesus' words in Matthew 21:13, “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are turning it into a den of robbers!” This language was common in nonbiblical sources as well.The second question we should ask is, why is it the Lord's house? Because the Lord's presence is there. Before there was a temple, there was a tabernacle (a tent). As Exodus 35 tells us, “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” Once Israel was established as a nation, God chose the temple as his resting place. “[T]he Lord's splendor filled God's temple.” (2 Chronicles 5:14)Many “Dwelling Places”Jesus is going to be in the Father's presence. That much is very clear. The controversy is that the Father's house has many “dwelling places.” To what do these dwelling places refer? Primarily, the discussion is centered on whether John is speaking of a present and realized eschatology or a future eschatology. To put it more plainly, will the disciples go to these dwelling places now or in the distant future?Two InterpretationsMost Christians interpret this passage to mean that Jesus goes to prepare a place for believers for a future time when believers go be with the Lord. Jesus can finally make those preparation because of his death. Jesus would die first, reconciling us with God and therefore allowing us to dwell in his presence. This idea of a future home with God was not foreign to Judaism. Different Jewish writings and funerary inscriptions describe the dead as entering a house (e.g., an “eternal house” or receiving a “house” as a reward).The other view, which although significantly less popular has scholarly support, is that Jesus is speaking of a soon-to-be-present reality: the Holy Spirit indwelling believers. In the Gospel of John, Jesus describes his body as the true temple:“Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21)The argument goes that Jesus is speaking of bringing the believer into union with himself, which is very much in keeping with verse 3. Each believer becomes a part of (i.e., a dwelling place in) the temple because the Spirit of God is in them as well. The Apostle Paul expresses this idea. “Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)Moreover, John does seem to emphasize a present reality instead of a future eschatology. Recall John 5:24, “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.” Jesus speaks in the present tense.Finally, some argue that this interpretation fits the farewell discourse much better. Jesus is reassuring his disciples. Arguably, saying “I will be right back” (through the Holy Spirit) is better than saying, “in the distant future we will be together again.”Your interpretation of verse 2 will determine your interpretation of verse 3. If you think that verse 2 is speaking of the soon-to-come Holy Spirit, then Jesus' coming in verse 3 is referencing Jesus' return to the disciples immediately after his resurrection. If you think that verse 2 is speaking of a future eschatology, then Jesus' coming is a reference to his second coming at the end times.My Take-Away: We Return to the Lord's PresenceRegardless if which view you take, the key point stands: we return to God's presence. This is nothing short of a grandiose moment in history. This is the final act of the whole story of the Bible. The rescue of humanity is complete. Reconciliation with God is accomplished. Heaven can return. I will quote from Sandra Richter's The Epic of Eden extensively to show that this is the overarching story of the Bible:In the initial paradise—Eden—God dwells with man.We have learned in this chapter that Genesis 1–2 essentially provides a blueprint to God's original intent for humanity: God's people dwelling in God's place with full access to his presence. You will hear this little triplet many times throughout the course of this book. Yahweh planned a perfect world in which the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would live eternally, stretching their cognitive and creative skills to the uttermost, building their civilization within the protective boundaries of their relationship with him. But treason bred tragedy—a broken covenant, a broken race. The end result was that God's people were driven from God's place and forever separated from his presence. The only hope in this wretched state of affairs was God's redemptive mercy. Indeed, redemptive history starts right here. Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 118). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.As man falls, he is separated from God. God's dwelling place and man's dwelling place are separated seemingly forever.When we left Eden, we left a fruit-filled paradise animated by a cosmic river and graced by the Tree of Life. This paradise, which was once the shared dwelling place of God and humanity, is now defended against Adam's race by means of cherubim. The city of man and the kingdom of God are now separated; Adam and Eve now live in exile from their heavenly father. How will this wretched state of affairs be righted? Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 119). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.As God makes a covenant with Israel on Mount Sinai, God establishes a sort of embassy. God resides with his people in a very limited form.Here on Mount Sinai, God instructs Moses to build a habitation for the Holy One among his people. “Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them” (Ex 25:8). The text tells us that the reason God wants this sanctuary is “so that I might live among them.” Do you hear the echo of Eden here? This will be the first time since the garden that God has dwelt with ʾAdām. Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 120). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.The prophets see the end game: God's dwelling place engulfing the realm of man.Whereas Ezekiel had lived through the period of the exile in which Jerusalem was captured and the temple razed, in these chapters he is seeing with the eyes of vision the restoration of this beloved temple at the end of all things. In his vision, the temple has subsumed all of Jerusalem; the entire city has become the temple. And the temple is now a perfect square (Ezek 48:35). This becomes very significant when we remember that the only part of Solomon's temple that was perfectly square was the Holy of Holies. Thus, in Ezekiel's vision, the Holy of Holies (the place God actually dwelt) has enveloped the city of man. “He said to me, ‘Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever'” (Ezek 43:7). In sum, Ezekiel's vision of the “rest of the story” is God and humanity dwelling together within a city that has become a temple. Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 126). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.Finally, it happens. Restoration. Praise the Lord.This brings us at last to Revelation 21–22, the end of the story.Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” (Rev 21:1-5)What John is describing here is what Christians call “heaven.” But unlike the images common to our imaginations—disembodied spirits, clouds and wings, harps and chubby cherubs—the biblical author is describing heaven as a new earth. The garden has been restored, the primordial deep (“chaos”) has been defeated, and Ezekiel's city/temple is being lowered from the heavens to serve as the residence of the redeemed. Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 127). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.This is the heart of the story. The end is the beginning. The goal is to return to what was lost: God's presence.So what is God's final intent for humanity? As is obvious from tracing the iconography of Eden through redemptive history, God's original intent is his final intent. Eden was the perfect plan, and God has never had any other. His goal was that the people of God might dwell in the place of God, enjoying the presence of God. This is all our heavenly Father has ever wanted for us. And everything that lies between Eden's gate and the New Jerusalem, the bulk of our Bibles, is in essence a huge rescue plan. In fact, we could summarize the plot line of the Bible into one cosmic question: “How do we get ʾAdām back into the garden?” In Genesis 3 humanity was driven out; in Revelation 21–22 they are welcomed home. Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 129). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.John 14 speaks of the culmination of the Bible story as if it is imminent. Sure, some events still need to play out, but the final move is finally announced. Jesus will die and he will return us to God's presence. Each and every one of God's people will dwell with him, in his house, like it was in Eden. As we read the rest of the chapter, we learn that God will send the Holy Spirit to be with each of us. This is a better cohabitation arrangement than even the prophets could have ever hoped for. We are not only with God in a physical sense but in a spiritual one too.The Way, the Truth, and the LifeIf there is a single verse that I think about all the time, it is this one: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” I think the entire Bible can be understood as explaining this singular sentence.Jesus Is the WayJesus is the way. He is going to the Father's presence by virtue of his identity and character. Jesus alone is entitled to this. Jesus is the Word, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.” (John 1:1) But Jesus shares himself with whoever will accept him. “I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever.” (John 6:48-51a)It is through Christ that we have access to God. Jesus is the High Priest who can enter the Holy of Holies to see God. But unlike the old High Priest, Jesus tears the curtain of the Holy of Holies and shares God's direct presence with everyone.And it is only through Christ that we have access. He is “the” way, not “a” way (and, yes, the Greek uses the definite article). Recall John 10:9, “I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, and find pasture.” Anyone who jumps the hedge to get into the sheepfold, anyone who enters in any other way but through the door is nothing more than a “thief.”It is only in “Jesus name” that we can confidently walk into the kingdom. Indeed, “in Jesus name” we can ask for anything as if we were kings ourselves.Jesus is the TruthThroughout our study of this gospel, I have often mentioned that John draws from the personification of wisdom to explain who Jesus is. As we discussed in session 2, the closest connection to the personified logos is the personified sofia. In short, Jesus is “the wisdom.” As in the case of the way, Jesus is not “a” wisdom but “the” wisdom. Forgive my grammatical unorthodoxy, but I am trying to make clear that Jesus is the truth and all truth. The existence of “the truth” has many implications. There is a right and a wrong. There is a knowledge of what is true and there is deception. There is an understanding that leads to life and a path that leads to destruction.In Christ there is no deception or error. In Christ no knowledge is lacking. In Christ, truth meets purpose and beauty.Remember as well that unlike the Greeks, when Jews spoke of truth or wisdom they emphasized moral knowledge. Jesus audience would have heard, “Do you want to know how to live well before God, I am that knowledge.”Jesus is the LifeRecall the covenant that God made with Israel on Mount Sinai. God ends the covenant with the following exhortation:“Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. What I am commanding you today is to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to obey his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances. Then you will live and become numerous and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are about to possess. However, if you turn aside and do not obey, but are lured away to worship and serve other gods, I declare to you this very day that you will certainly perish! You will not extend your time in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess. Today I invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set life and death, blessing and curse, before you. Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live! I also call on you to love the Lord your God, to obey him and be loyal to him, for he gives you life and enables you to live continually in the land the Lord promised to give to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Deuteronomy 30:15-20, emphasis added)Choose life! That phrase is perpetually in my mind. Jesus offers life and life abundant. “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.” (John 10:10) Jesus offers the kind of life full of joy and peace and purpose for which we were created. He offers life in which we give love eternally and receive love eternally. And he is that life. We can access it only through him and by remaining in him.Believe in the Father, Believe in Me, Believe the Miracles, Do Even Greater MiraclesThe Union of The Father and SonBeginning in verse 8, Jesus emphasizes his unity with the Father in the strongest terms possible. This is not a new idea in John's Gospel. This is a recurring theme that has appeared all throughout. That is why Philip's questions is nearly offensive. “Show us the Father,” Philip requests. Jesus responds, “Have I been with you for so long and yet you have not known me, Philip?” Somehow Philip has missed the point for years on end. Recall how the book begins (John 1:18), “No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.”Jesus sets the record straight one more time, “The person who has seen me has seen the Father!” Jesus and the Father are perfectly united. To see one is to see the other. Too hard to believe? “Believe the miracles,” says Jesus. This is, I think, an unexpected claim given the modern understanding of faith. Jesus is not asking Philip for blind faith. Jesus is making an evidentiary argument. Not only those opposed to Christianity but many Christians as well disregard all evidence and ask people simply to believe. I do not think that is the approach Jesus is taking here.A Strange Excursus into Reformed EpistemologyGiven my comment on evidence above, what if we haven't seen a miracle. Is it irrational for us to have faith? I certainly do not think so. I think this is a good opportunity to introduce a concept called “reformed epistemology.” This is a relatively obscure idea outside the circles of philosophy of religion, but it has made a huge impact in my life and I think it is worth sharing. As much as I try to stick to the text, please allow me this one rabbit chase.Let's begin by asking a question: are we warranted in believing a proposition only if we have inferred it from evidence-backed propositions? Your initial reaction may be, “yes!” But hold on a minute. Consider the concept of a “properly basic belief.”The idea basically is that there are beliefs that we hold which I think we are rational in holding, and indeed which we know to be true and which are warranted for us which are not grounded in inference from other beliefs, from arguments and evidence. Examples of such properly basic beliefs, as they are called, would be belief in the reality of the past, belief in the external world around us, memory beliefs, beliefs that spring from testimony of others to us. These are not inferences that we make; these are properly basic beliefs that are grounded in certain experiences. Alvin Plantinga has argued that belief in God is similarly a properly basic belief, which he would say is grounded in certain experiences of the world like feelings that I am a sinner before God, or all of this was designed by God, or in the case of Christian beliefs, that when we read in Scripture that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, the Holy Spirit produces in us a conviction of the truth of that scriptural proposition. So these beliefs are warranted for us, not by way of inference or argument, but in a properly basic way. Reasonable Faith website. Before you accuse me of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and disregarding or even opposing evidentiary arguments, notice that a properly basic belief may be incorrect. It may be “defeated.”You mustn't equate being properly basic with being indefeasible. Memory beliefs (e.g., “I left the car keys in the dresser”) and perceptual beliefs (e.g., “I see a cat in the backyard”) are, like beliefs grounded in testimony, properly basic but are defeasible, that is to say, they can be mistaken. The fact that my properly basic beliefs may sometimes be false does nothing to remove their proper basicality (that is, I am rational and exhibit no cognitive defect in holding such experientially grounded beliefs non-inferentially). If I become aware of some defeater of one of my properly basic beliefs, then I must give it up (or find a defeater of the defeater). Reasonable Faith website.Surely at this point you are thinking: “why in the world are we digressing into this obscure concept?!” Because, like in the case of Jesus and Philip, I think that evidence is a way in which people can come to faith in God. However, I also think that reformed epistemology holds a modest but brilliant insight. If Christianity is true, so is the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is a real person who can really witness to us in a way we can perceive, however that perception works, then we can be warranted in holding our faith without evidence. Why? Because if Christianity is true, it is experiential. We can experience our faith.Again, notice how modest this assertion is. It begins with the assumption that Christianity is true. This is not a argument for Christianity. It is only an argument that works if Christianity is true. If we can experience God, that can be sufficient warrant to believe in him absent any deafeaters.Allow me to give an example to close this section. Imagine I am accused of shooting the deputy. I know I did not do it (I only shot the sheriff but I did not shoot the deputy). However, at trial the prosecutors offer incredible evidence of my guilt. A receipt shows I ate at the same restaurant and at the same time as the deputy; the bullet that killed the deputy matches the caliber used by the gun I was carrying; a witness says they saw me pull the trigger. All evidence points in a certain direction. In fact, the jury would be warranted in finding me guilty. However, if I know I did not do it because I experienced not doing it, I am warranted in my belief as well. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I did it and forgot. Perhaps my memory failed me because of a mental condition. Perhaps I was under the influence of drugs. My experience is not infallible, but my belief of my own innocence is in fact warranted until one those defeaters is proved. The point I am trying to make is this: evidence is very important, but so is proper epistemology. You can believe in God because you have experienced God.Back to the Text: Miraculous DeedsIn verse 12, as a follow up to asking Philip to believe the “miraculous deeds,” Jesus adds, “[the person who believes] will perform greater deed than these.” As if that were not scandalous enough, Jesus adds, “I will do whatever you ask in my name.” What?!Honestly, I find these verses difficult to interpret, and it is not for a lack of trying. Let's begin with the idea of miraculous deeds.Maybe the best way to go about understanding these verses is to consider what different people think. The well-known pastor John Piper gives what I think is the majority view among protestants. (As I have pointed out in the past, I do not have some study that shows what is the majority or minority view. I am relying on my own experience. I could be wrong.)Verse 12a: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do.” Now we create problems for ourselves immediately by thinking of Jesus' most amazing miracles. At this point in the Gospel of JohnJesus has turned water into wine (John 2:1–11).He has read the mind of the woman of Samaria (John 4:18).He has healed the official's son (John 4:46–54).He had healed the man crippled for 38 years (John 5:1–9).He had fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (John 6:1–14).He had walked on water (John 6:19).He had healed a man born blind (John 9:1–7).And he had raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the grave (John 11:43–44). What did Jesus mean when he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do.” Did Jesus mean that every Christian would do all these? Or that every Christian would do one or two of these? And if you don't, you don't believe?That's not likely in view of the fact that in the New Testament letters where miracles are mentioned they are a gift that some Christians have and not others. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12 . . . .Well, if Jesus doesn't mean that all believers will do miracles like his, what does he mean . . . ? Let's look closely at the connections here and then at a more distant parallel.First, the connection between verse 11 and 12. Verse 11: “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.” So the word “believe” and “works” occur together in verse 11 just like they come together in verse 12. Jesus' works are designed to help people believe. …Then verse 12 follows: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do.” Now put verse 11 and 12 together and let the function of the works be the same in both verses. Verse 11: my works function to lead people to faith in me. Verse 12: when you believe in me, I will work in you (like a vine works in a branch, John 15:1–7), and your works, like mine, will lead people to faith.So the connection between verses 11 and 12 goes like this: believe in me on account of my works — let my works lead you to faith (verse 11), because whoever believes in me (verse 12a), will also do works that lead people to believe in me.So whatever the specific works are that Jesus has in mind, what defines them here is that they are pointers to Jesus which help people believe in him. [emphasis added]…So I conclude that, however many Christians God may give gifts of miracles and healing, all of them (and that is what the text is about, “whoever believes in me”) — all of them will do the works of Jesus in the sense that all his works of every kind testified to his truth and deity. And every Christian does these works — that is, lives this life. We are the aroma of Christ. We are the light of the world. [emphasis added]…The second part of this text (John 14:12b) is that, in some wonderful way, we will all do something greater than the works of Jesus. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do because I am going to the Father.”Again it is every believer, not just the apostles, not just pastors or elders or charismatics or evangelists. “Whoever believes in me . . . greater works than these will he do.” This is the mark of being a Christian, not being an apostle.If you think “greater works” means “more miraculous” you will be hard put to exceed walking on water, feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fish, and raising the dead. I don't know of any Christian who has ever lived — inside or outside the New Testament — who has ever done all three of those miracles, let alone something more miraculous. Let alone every Christian having done these miracles or something more miraculous. [emphasis added]…So in John 14:12 Jesus is saying that his disciples will not only continue his works, but will do greater ones because he goes to the Father. And on the way to the Father, he goes to the cross and lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:15; 1:29), rises from the dead and ascends to God, from where he sends the Holy Spirit so the disciples can do the works they are called to do.And in John 20:21–23 he is saying that his disciples are to continue his work by receiving the Holy Spirit and, in that power, imparting the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus — on the basis of Jesus death and resurrection.…What are the “greater works” that you will do — all of you? You will receive the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the crucified and risen Christ. Before the resurrection of Jesus, nobody in the history of the world had ever done that, not even Jesus. And in the power of that absolutely new experience — the indwelling of the crucified and risen Christ — your works of love and your message of life in union with Christ, will point people to the glory of the risen Son of God, and you will be the instrument of their forgiveness on the basis of the finished work of Christ (John 20:23). [emphasis added] This will be new. This will be greater than Jesus's earthly miracles because this is what he came to accomplish by his death and resurrection. Desiring God website.You can read Piper's whole article by following the link above.What about a more Catholic perspective? Consider the following excerpt from a Catholic blog:In other words, the greater works that the apostles will perform are the sacraments. [emphasis added] Because although for most of us, we are more amazed by the visible, material miracles that Jesus performed in his lifetime, Jesus is more correct to say that the Sacraments are actually greater miracles. Because what Jesus does during his public ministry visibly through his visible miracles, is going to point forward to what God will do in the apostles through the Holy Spirit invisibly in the mysteries of the Sacraments. And you might think, “that is kind of strong Dr. Pitre, how could you say that?” Well let me just give you an example here. St. Thomas Aquinas, when he was writing a commentary on this particular passage, this Gospel today from the Gospel of John, St. Thomas Aquinas says that:“What is remarkable is that he adds, “and greater works than these will he do” (John14:12)… Christ is speaking of this result or work when he says that believers “will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do” (John 14:12), for the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth. [emphasis added] For the justification of the wicked, considered in itself, continues forever… But the heavens and the earth will pass away…”That is St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary, and he is actually quoting St. Augustine's commentary on the Gospel of John as well, which is also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1994. So this is kind of a standard stream of tradition in the Catholic Church, that John 14 is Jesus promising the disciples not only that he would be the road to salvation, but that that road is going to take the particular shape of the Sacraments of the Church. Catholic Productions website.Of course, I could also offer a charismatic perspective that will take the promise to do miraculous deeds very much literally. I have not been able to find a good summary of that view, otherwise I would post it.My personal input can best be presented as a series of questions. Have Christians not fed the masses? Have they not built hospitals and healed the sick? Have they not built schools and universities and educated countless people? Did they not put an end to slavery? Did they not fight for the rights of the downtrodden? Did they not share the good news with the world? It seems to me that Jesus fed the 5,000; we have fed millions. Jesus healed a blind man; we heal blind men daily. Sure, we don't often do it miraculously, but for me that's a distinction without a difference.In Jesus' NameNow let's address the idea of asking “in Jesus' name.” This is a powerful phrase that means to ask in the authority of. Think of the clichés “stop in the name of the King” or “stop in the name of the law.” They invoke and apply the authority of another person or entity. With that in mind, consider the unimaginable delegation of authority that Jesus is making in John 14:13 and 14.Several questions immediately come to mind. The first is obviously about limitations: is this a blanket power given to Christians? I don't think so. The closest scriptural reference I can provide to substantiate my answer is Acts 19:11-17:God was performing extraordinary miracles by Paul's hands, so that when even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his body were brought to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. But some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were possessed by evil spirits, saying, “I sternly warn you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” (Now seven sons of a man named Sceva, a Jewish high priest, were doing this.) But the evil spirit replied to them, “I know about Jesus and I am acquainted with Paul, but who are you?” Then the man who was possessed by the evil spirit jumped on them and beat them all into submission. He prevailed against them so that they fled from that house naked and wounded. This became known to all who lived in Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; fear came over them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was praised.I know that a possible response is that the “Jewish exorcists” were not followers of Jesus. That's why their use of Jesus' name did not work. That is certainly possible. But notice also that specifically Paul was doing all the miracles. It was not every Christian doing so. So not even in New Testament times did Christians behave like they could request anything in the name of Jesus (like a healing or wealth) and immediately obtain it. If there are limits, then why even pray in Jesus' name? I think that there is an interaction between the believer and Jesus. The believer must ask to receive. Jesus will grant if the request is in accordance with his will and character. To quote James 4:2-3, “You desire and you do not have; you murder and envy and you cannot obtain; you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask; you ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, so you can spend it on your passions.”Much more importantly, we need to notice the radical change that Jesus is making. We do not notice this because we are not first century Jews. They certainly would have been scandalized by Jesus' words, but for different reasons than us. Consider the following Old Testament passage (2 Chronicles 6:24-35) with emphasis added by me:24 “If your people Israel are defeated by an enemy because they sinned against you, then if they come back to you, renew their allegiance to you, and pray for your help before you in this temple, 25 then listen from heaven, forgive the sin of your people Israel, and bring them back to the land you gave to them and their ancestors.26 “The time will come when the skies are shut up tightly and no rain falls because your people sinned against you. When they direct their prayers toward this place, renew their allegiance to you, and turn away from their sin because you punish them, 27 then listen from heaven and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel. Certainly you will then teach them the right way to live and send rain on your land that you have given your people to possess.28 “The time will come when the land suffers from a famine, a plague, blight, and disease, or a locust invasion, or when their enemy lays siege to the cities of the land, or when some other type of plague or epidemic occurs. 29 When all your people Israel pray and ask for help, as they acknowledge their intense pain and spread out their hands toward this temple, 30 then listen from your heavenly dwelling place, forgive their sin, and act favorably toward each one based on your evaluation of their motives. (Indeed you are the only one who can correctly evaluate the motives of all people.) 31 Then they will honor you by obeying you throughout their lifetimes as they live on the land you gave to our ancestors.32 “Foreigners who do not belong to your people Israel will come from a distant land because of your great reputation and your ability to accomplish mighty deeds; they will come and direct their prayers toward this temple. 33 Then listen from your heavenly dwelling place and answer all the prayers of the foreigners. Then all the nations of the earth will acknowledge your reputation, obey you as your people Israel do, and recognize that this temple I built belongs to you.34 “When you direct your people to march out and fight their enemies, and they direct their prayers to you toward this chosen city and this temple I built for your honor, 35 then listen from heaven to their prayers for help and vindicate them.God listened to prayers given at or at least directed to the temple. But who is or is in (depending on how you interpret the beginning of this chapter) the temple now? Who will be dwelling in the many dwelling places in the Father's house? Believers! Believers no longer need to pray in or towards the temple. They are always there. This is a radical change. Now we can go directly to God through Jesus. This is the main point. Not what things Jesus will grant and which ones he won't. Recall Jesus' words to the woman at the well:But a time is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24)Moreover, In Mark 11, Jesus gives a similar “guarantee” that whatever we ask he will grant. In Mark 11, the speech is given within the context of Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple. Of crucial importance was to explain how the people of God could remain connected to God after the temple's destruction. Still don't believe me? After the destruction of the first temple, some rabbis taught that God would no longer hear Israel's prayer. It's in the Talmud!All I can say is, the time is here when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.

Joel is a professor and student of philosophy, currently working toward his PhD.  We talk about what philosophy is, some philosophical questions concerning the Christian faith, Alvin Plantinga, David Hume, and day-to-day philosophical pursuits for the common person. Joel

Welcome to episode seventy-six of New Creation Conversations. My guest today is the incredibly gifted writer and Christian philosopher, Dr. James K.A. Smith. I have really been looking forward to having this conversation for a while. Jamie and I became friends about twenty-five years ago when he was a young professor at Loyola-Marymount University, and I was early in my teaching career at Southern Nazarene University. We both got accepted into a summer study program at Calvin College to study “eschatology and hope” with Dr. Miroslav Volf. It was a very enriching summer intellectually and spiritually. However, part of the benefit of the program was that Calvin invited us to bring our families with us for the six weeks we were there. It just happened that Jamie and his wife Deanna, and Deb and I both had four kids all around the same age and so we got to hang out as families.The group that summer had several very gifted and bright people in it, but it didn't take long for us to figure out that Jamie was gifted in unique ways. Eventually Calvin invited him to join their very prestigious philosophy faculty – a faculty that in the past has included names like Richard Mouw, Alvin Plantinga, and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Jamie now is Professor of Philosophy and the Gary and Henrietta Byker Chair in Applied Reformed Theology and Worldview. In these last two decades Jamie has written some of the most widely read and greatly influential books of this generation. We will talk about several of them in our conversation, but some of the best known are Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?; How (Not) to Be Secular (CT winner); the award-winning Desiring the Kingdom (CT winner); You are What You Love, and more recently On the Road with St. Augustine (CT winner). He's also written for the Wall Street Journal, the nY Times, The Washington Post, USA Today… well, you get the point.Jamie has an amazing story of both coming to faith in Christ and becoming a scholar – which he I got him to tell pieces of in our conversation. He's a graduate of the University of Waterloo. Did his Master's in Philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies, and earned his PhD in Philosophy from Villanova University. A lot of our conversation centers on his brand-new book, How to Inhabit Time: Understanding the Past, Facing the Future, Living Faithfully Now (Brazos Press). It is exactly what you would expect from Jamie, a rich, thoughtful, well-written, and transformational textJamie makes a very short list of four or five people who have shaped my own journey and my thinking the most, it's fun that I also get to call him a friend. Thanks for listening in to this New Creation Conversation. Here's my conversation with Dr. James K.A. Smith.

Today's ID the Future continues A Mousetrap for Darwin author Michael Behe's conversation with philosopher Pat Flynn, focused on some of the more substantive objections to Behe's case for intelligent design in biology. In this segment the pair discuss the bacterial flagellum, the cilium, and the blood clotting cascade, and tackle critiques from Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Russell Doolittle, Kenneth Miller, and others. This interview is posted here by permission of Pat Flynn. Source

On today's ID the Future Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe addresses what Philosophy for the People host Pat Flynn considers some of the best objections to Behe's central intelligent design argument. As far back as the 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, Behe has argued that certain features in biology are irreducibly complex. That is, they require numerous essential parts, each carefully fitted to its task and integrated with the other parts, in order for the molecular machine or system to function at all. Two examples are the bacterial flagellum motor and the blood clotting cascade. Such systems are, in Behe's words, irreducibly complex and could not have arisen through any blind and gradual evolution process. The better explanation for their Read More › Source

Cries for unity are common among evangelicals. "Who cares what it says on the sign, as long as you love Jesus," say many who long for a church without unnecessary divisions that can sometimes cause such pain within the body of Christ. Amen! But, while it is tragic to see a lack of unity where it should be had, it is certainly tragic to pretend theological unity where it cannot exist. How should Christians think about this? Jude will help us with that answer. From the speaker: I AM THE SUM OF MY PARTS . . . God has moved in my life through a number of powerful men and women of God from whom I have benefited greatly. There is nothing new under the sun, as it is said. For that reason, much of what you hear in these lectures is not unique to me. Most of it was likely gleaned from other sources. I want to be transparent about that and share my sources. In terms of biblical scholarship, I have been blessed by the work of Harold Hunter (my father), Craig Keener, David Allen, Malcom Yarnell, Tom Schriner, Johnathan Pritchett (with whom I co-host Trinity Radio), F.F. Bruce, Adam Harwood (with whom I have co-authored), Steve Gregg (with whom I have worked), and Bruce Ware. As for Christian apologetics, William Lane Craig (with whom I have lectured), Michael Licona (a personal friend), Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, William Dembski, Michael J. Murray, James White, Alvin Plantinga, and a host of others have impacted my thinking. Because I have been so impressed with the structure, organization, and delivery of his own audio commentary, I personally made request to Steve Gregg (who has served as a visiting professor for Trinity) that I might follow his model. In fact, he was delighted with the idea that I might largely follow his teaching outline. Why then, with so much great scholarship already available, would I want to add my voice? There are three reasons. First, I can imagine no more worthy endeavor than to study and proclaim the truths of scripture. Second, though I admire greatly the men listed above, I do not agree with any of them on all things. Third, God has blessed me with a humble audience that does not listen to these other voices. I hope that you will benefit from this passing on of knowledge.

It's tempting to think that secularized academics are too intellectual to ever come to the kind of “childlike faith” that Jesus described, or that, if they ever were to trust Christ, they'd have to abandon their academic pursuits. However, like once-liberal theologian Thomas Oden or once-radical feminist English professor Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, the case of Rodney Stark suggests otherwise. Dr. Stark's research and reading, specifically about the impact of Christianity in history, was part of what moved him to become a committed believer.  Stark was born in North Dakota in 1934. Oddly enough, he played high school football with Alvin Plantinga, the great Christian philosopher. After a stint in the army, he studied journalism in college, graduating in 1959. Once, during his early career as a reporter, he covered a meeting of the Oakland Spacecraft Club where the speaker claimed to have visited Mars, Venus, and the moon in a flying saucer. After Stark reported the story straight, with no sarcasm or snide comments, he was assigned all of the odd stories that came along.  Stark's ability to treat people's beliefs seriously and recognize that, at least for them, these beliefs are plausible, was a key element in his decision to shift from journalism to sociology. In 1972, after completing his graduate work at the University of California-Berkley, he was hired as a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington.  Stark focused his research on why people were religious. How did they understand their faith? What did they get out of it? How did they live it out? From this focus, Stark developed a theory of conversion that emphasized social relationships, felt needs, and personal choice. In essence, Stark concluded that conversion was a rational choice, based on the expectation that one would receive more from the religion than it would cost to join it.   He was among the first sociologists to recognize that competition between religious groups increased the overall religiosity of a community. In other words, a religious group with a monopoly tends to get lazy and neglect meeting needs and conducting outreach. Stark was also critical of the standard academic view that secularization was an inevitable result of modernization. Instead, he argued this idea was wildly wrong because sociologists misunderstood religion and failed to account for religious revivals and innovation.  His book The Rise of Christianity was published in 1996. In it, Stark argued that the incredible growth and spread of Christianity were because it offered more to people than any of its competitors. In particular, Stark argued that the rapid growth of the Church was, in large part, due to how Christians treated women. This, especially compared to the pagan treatment of women, led to more conversions, which led to the faith being spread through social networks. Also, prohibitions of abortion and infanticide led to an organic growth of the Church, and how Christians responded to persecution and plague led to a growth in credibility. The Rise of Christianity was so groundbreaking that it was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.  After this, Stark focused his work on the history of Christianity. After writing two books on the historical impact of monotheism — first One True God in 2001 and then For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch Hunts, and the End of Slavery in 2003, Stark wrote what may be his greatest book, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, in 2005.   In 2004, the year before The Victory of Reason was published, Stark commented, “I have trouble with faith. I'm not proud of this. I don't think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it's over.” The Victory of Reason first brought Dr. Stark to the attention of Chuck Colson, who was astounded that a self-professed agnostic sociologist was clear-eyed and honest enough to recognize and highlight the effects of Christianity on the world. Chuck featured The Victory of Reason on Breakpoint and included it in the Centurions Program (now known as the Colson Fellows).  After the commentary aired, Rodney Stark contacted Chuck Colson, and thanked him for the kind words. He also told Colson that he had come to faith in Christ, which he publicly announced in 2007.  In 2004, Stark became the distinguished professor of the social sciences at Baylor University, as well as the co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion and founding editor of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. Although Baylor is a Baptist school, Stark preferred to call himself an “independent Christian” and continued to produce important and sometimes controversial books on Christianity, history, and culture.  Throughout his career, Stark was an irascible critic of political and religious biases in the academic world, especially in his own field of sociology. His intellectual brilliance is attested by his groundbreaking work, and his intellectual honesty and integrity by his faith, a faith he studied for many years. 

In this interview, Dr. Andrew Moon summarizes Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), then responds to some objections. For a short animated summary of the argument, check out the video linked below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qap_FyQxILM To go more in depth, check out Dr. Moon's recent paper, "Global Debunking Arguments" linked below. https://philpapers.org/rec/MOOGDA Please consider becoming a patron. Go to https://www.patreon.com/theanalyticchristian For merch and more, go to https://www.theanalyticchristian.com

Dr. Craig interacts with attendees of the Plantinga Conference on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

It was more than four hundred years ago that Francis Bacon, now recognized as the architect of the scientific method, made the claim that God has given us two books to study: Scripture and creation. God's Word and God's world. He believed that not only was there a beautiful synthesis between faith and science, but that they, in different ways, give us a fuller revelation of who God is. Times, however, have changed. According to a recent poll, 55% of Americans believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and science. How should we respond? What does Christianity teach us about the interaction of faith and science?Resources:PursuingFaith.orgBooks Mentioned in this Episode:Cosmic Chemistry by John LennoxCan Science Explain Everything by John LennoxWhere the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin PlantingaScience and Religion: a New Introduction by Alister McGrathThe Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning by Jonathan SacksWe'd love to hear from you! info@pursuingfaith.org

In this podcast, Rabbi Dr. Aaron Segal discusses whether arguments and evidence for God's existence are necessary in order to hold belief in God rationally. Rabbi Dr. Aaron Segal, is a faculty member at the Philosophy Department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He completed his PhD at the University of Notre Dame where he studied under the world renowned philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

This is Episode 29 of the Consortium Podcast, an academic audio blog of Kepler Education. In this episode, Scott Postma and Joffre Swait interview Dr. Mitch Stokes to talk about his new Calculus textbook., Calculus for Everyone, and what it means to teach math classically. Mitch Stokes (Ph.D., Notre Dame) is a senior fellow of philosophy at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. In addition to studying philosophy under world-renowned philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Stokes holds degrees in philosophy, religion, & mechanical engineering. He is the author of Calculus for Everyone, books on apologetics, and biographies of Newton and Galileo.   To learn more about classical education and browse courses, visit us at http://kepler.education.

Parker Settecase returns to Transfigured for a discussion on his recent paper about Jordan Peterson's philosophy and theology and how he has problems raised by the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) first posed by Alvin Plantinga and developed by Thomas Crisp. We also mention Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Bret Weinstein, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Kevin Vanhoozer, CS Lewis, Soren Kierkegaard, John Walton, Alfred Balfour, Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Pageau, John Vervaeke, Aristotle, Plato, Stoicism, Epicureanism and more. Parker's Channel is called Parker's Pensees

To celebrate reaching 20 episodes, I am thrilled to be releasing another extended special. Please meet philosopher Benjamin Zemmel. Benjamin is Jewish and works in the field of religion and ethics. After gaining his undergrad in Judiac Studies, he went on to gain his master in Philosophy from Birmingham University. Benjamin will soon embark upon another postgrad, this time at Edinburgh University in Epistemology. In this episode we not only discuss the historical arguments for and against God's existence, but we also explore some of the more recent additions to the debate. I hope you will enjoy listening to this episode as much as I enjoyed recording it. Oh, and don't forget to check out Benjamin's podcast 'The Jewish Philosophy Podcast' here: https://jewishpodcasts.fm/jewishphilosophypodcast and check them out on twitter: @TheJewishPhilo1.Thrive by MusicbyAden | https://soundcloud.com/musicbyadenMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comAttribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time - Voltaire In this episode, we look at St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God put forth in 1077. The version we examine is Alvin Plantinga's because it is better structured for discussion. It seeks to prove the existence of God through deductive argument using a reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This argument can also be seen as an extension of our discussion of Descartes, and his efforts to prove the existence of God through deductive argument, as well as Plato's view of the good. In the next episode, we will examine some critiques of this argument. Always feel free to let us know what you think, or any episode requests. We would love to hear from you! Thank you for listening and we'll see you next time as we search for truth on the road that never ends!

Tripp in an AI researcher at Amazon and a friend I met through the Paul Vanderklay online community. He is an expert on Aristotelianism, Thomistic theology, and the philosophy of mind with a masters in philosophy from Duke. We talk about the doctrine of divine simplicity, how that relates to the doctrine of the trinity, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Ray Kurzweil, Alvin Plantinga, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, David Hume, Thomas Bayes, the argument against miracles, Adam Friended, Michael Shermer, Alexander the Great, Tim McGrew, Douglas Murray, Christian Atheists, William Lane Craig, the cosmological argument, the Gospel of John, John the Baptist, and just why was Jesus crucified? Here is our first conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvXOZj4kQGU&t=2s Here is a link to Tripp, Esther and Adam Friended debating the resurrection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7g9ic521c8 Tim McGrew and the argument from miracles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSEobV4cHnc

Today we're sitting down with the very knowledgeable Dr. David Limbaugh to talk through Rational Christian Belief. This was a intellectual conversation where we all learned a lot and had a few laughs along the way!Our coffee of the week is the very enjoyable Finger Lakes Coffee Roasters go to http://www.fingerlakescoffee.comIf you would like to learn more about some of the ideas talked about in this episode please check out the book "Knowledge and Christian Belief" by Alvin Plantinga. Support the show

Today we're sitting down with the very knowledgeable Dr. David Limbaugh to talk through Rational Christian Belief. This was a intellectual conversation where we all learned a lot and had a few laughs along the way!Our coffee of the week is the very enjoyable Finger Lakes Coffee Roasters go to http://www.fingerlakescoffee.comIf you would like to learn more about some of the ideas talked about in this episode please check out the book "Knowledge and Christian Belief" by Alvin Plantinga. Support the show

MEANING - If God exists, and if God ordains history and generates miracles, how does He do it? Fiddle with each and every atom? Command all of them en masse? What possibly could be God's technique? Featuring Robert Russell, John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Alvin Plantinga and Ernan McMullin.

MEANING - You've heard the raucous noise about God; now listen to the cogent arguments, con and pro. Not that determining the existence of God is up for vote; when searching for Truth, majority opinion counts for nothing. Featuring Keith Ward, Owen Gingerich, William Craig, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Alvin Plantinga, and Steven Weinberg.

MEANING - How can you know whether God really exists, if you do not know what God really is? Diverse religions have diverse views and surprise is in store. Featuring Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Daniel Dennett, Seyyed Nasr, Varadaraja Raman, Huston Smith, and Michael Shermer.

Do humans have free will? Where does our spirit stop, and the Holy Spirit start? What about the problem of evil? Molly and Ryan get a chance to put the expert in the hot seat, Richard Tamburro, as he shares his passion for philosophical theology and the topic of free will.    Resources we mentioned: God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga    Thanks for listening to this episode of the House of Learning podcast. This podcast is produced by A Jesus Church College, based at Westside: A Jesus Church in Portland Oregon.   AJC College train and mobilize the next generation of Kingdom leaders through an accredited four-year degree in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Leadership and Formation, combining classroom learning with mentoring and ministry apprenticeship, for a third of the cost of traditional college.   To find out more, go to ajccollege.org, or follow us on Instagram or Facebook, to find out if this is where God could be calling you to explore your calling.   If you've enjoyed this episode, please leave us a review, subscribe, and share with someone. And if you have a question you'd like us to chat about, please let us know! You can email us at podcast@ajccollege.org. If you can, send us a 20 second audio recording saying who you are and where you are from, along with your question, and we'd love to include it in a future episode.

Drawing on the work of Alvin Plantinga, I explain what the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism is, go through how it works, and attempt to demonstrate that believing in both Evolution and Naturalism is self-defeating. Also I give a CNET reviewer a face palm and sigh award for pushing politics into tech reviews. (November 15, 2019)

While there are numerous arguments for the existence of God, most believers accept theism independent of sophisticated arguments and evidence. Are these theists irrational? In this episode, Zach discusses the idea of Reformed Epistemology developed by Alvin Plantinga who argues Christian believers can be warranted independent of evidence. The core thesis is that while some beliefs require external […]

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices