Stream

Join this community to post or comment
Pinned by moderator

Mark McGee
owner

Apologetics Content  - 
 
CAA is pleased to announce the publication of the new Equipped online magazine - Evidence for the Resurrection. Please read and share with family and friends. It's a great resource.
10
Add a comment...

Rob Trindade

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
 
Part two. (very short, part one below) God will not make your choice for you, but He will make you make your choice.
1
1
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
Add a comment...

Rob Trindade

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
 
Part one. (very short) Is God self-evident? He always gives us a choice.
1
1
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
Add a comment...

Solamon Grundy

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
 
In the book of Joshua the sun does not set for an extra day to allow for those who God favors to kill their enemies.

Do you understand that to mean that the earth stopped rotating for a time, the sun started orbiting earth rapidly for a day, time slowed for everyone but those involved in the conflict, or something else?
1
Solamon Grundy's profile photoMS An Thrope's profile photo
14 comments
 
+Solamon Grundy lol, perhaps it just felt like a really long day.
Add a comment...
 
Happening Now: Live Q&A with Alan Shlemon - ethics, values, religion. Ask on Twitter using #STRask.
1
Add a comment...

James Wyss

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
 
I'm reading Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and so far it's bizarre. The guy seems to think that Darwinian evolution implies that the universe and everything in it exists necessarily because he discounts intelligent design and random chance as explanations for why there is something rather than nothing. He didn't say it outright, but his rambling about "Mount Improbable," implies that it had to happen eventually, therefore no other explanation is needed. I'm no expert, but this seems like appallingly bad applied philosophy. How can contingent things exist necessarily?
11
1
Travis Wakeman's profile photoLuis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
29 comments
 
I am indeed a Christian. It is difficult to know what you are inquiring about without asking you to be more specific. The Old and New Testaments together compose Christian scripture, the revelation of God composed by and revealed through the hand of man.
Add a comment...
 
On this video, you will find out about Dr Eben Alexander, A Neurosurgeon who did not believe in Heaven, he was in coma and what he saw Astounded him. He woke up in the middle of the night with severe pains due to bacterial meningitis.
Doctors warned his family that they were not sure of his survival. during this period he describes what he believes to be proof of Heaven which led him to write a book in order for him to document everything he saw.
On this video, you will find out about Dr Eben Alexander, A Neurosurgeon who did not believe in Heaven, he was in coma and what he saw Astounded him. He woke up in the middle of the night with severe pains due to bacterial meningitis. Doctors warned his family that they were not sure of his survival. during this period he describes what he believes to be proof of Heaven which led him to write a book in order for him to document everything he saw...
2
1
ClarkRobbinsVanTilBahnsen ClarkVanTil's profile photoMark McGee's profile photoVictoria Sokoliuk's profile photo
2 comments
 
I agree, +ClarkRobbinsVanTilBahnsen ClarkVanTil , and was about to comment about it. When compared to the visions of Heaven by the prophets, reports of modern visions do not compare. Most of what people say they 'see' in these visions sound more new age than biblical.
Add a comment...

Oscar Rivera

Apologetics Content  - 
 
If our culture is to be transformed, it will happen from the bottom up – from ordinary believers practicing apologetics over the backyard fence or around the barbecue grill.
- Chuck Colson,Tweet.
4
1
Bao Tu's profile photo
Add a comment...

Rob Trindade

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Very tricky equation that attempts to explain the existence of everything. Anti matter (-1) as opposed to matter (1) somehow means both exist because they equal zero (don't equal one): 1 plus -1=0 just like 0-0=0 (or 0+0) BUT

0-0=0 or (0+0)
is not equal to
1+-1=0

Number line with only 0
Number line of -1 to 1

One equation requires value acting upon value and the other does not. Both positive and negative numbers have absolute value apart from zero. You have two numbers with absolute values of 1. This equation requires an absolute value of two to use in the equation. All value originates FROM (left and right of) point zero, yet value cannot come from non value. Just because an average of two values is zero, doesn't mean there is zero involved. Atheists still have not explained why and how positive or negative value (or anything) exists as opposed to just zero. They've still only merely stated that it does. While its true that we can't understand value without understanding its opposite, this does not explain why and how any value apart from point zero exists as opposed to just zero itself. They still don't know how anything exists. 
6
Monique Zorzella's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
44 comments
 
+Monique Zorzella
"Fairies and God are a different question entirely so we should probably not get caught up in irrelevant discussions. We already have so much going on."
Except the point was that they weren't so different. To believe in fairies is clearly silly, and this is because there is no evidence for them. The same applies to god.

"Assuming that something is false because it hasn't been proven true is still an argument from ignorance."
Again, that isn't my position. I literally just said that in the part you replied to. I am simply not believing X without evidence for X. That is not an argument from ignorance.

"This is an example of faith in that context, but you seem to be assuming that the Christian faith as a whole is the same as someone having faith that their evidence will be substantiated. Just because you belong to the Christian faith it does not mean that you believe in Christianity without evidence; that would be a false equivocation."
RIght, but we were talking about how you used it. You said I had faith in science or the scientific models, and that you had faith in god existing or religion. From the list of definitions you gave, the only one that matches and is relevant is the one that I gave, or the trust one. This would then be you equivocating. Trust is earned. I have trust in science because it demonstrably works. Demonstrate your trust is earned. If you can't, then the only definition left is the belief without evidence one.

"I get this, but methodological naturalism is a presumption that doesn't serve as proof for metaphysical naturalism. As a freethinker, you shouldn't be excluding any possibilities simply because you think some methodology tells you that you cannot consider it; that wouldn't really be free thinking"
RIght, and it doesn't try to be... I also never said that I wasn't open to it. I have been asking for a definition and evidence for a few comments now...

"Something that isn't natural would be the simplest definition. I personally prefer the term transcendent. However this gives rise to a question that you need to answer: define natural. Perhaps the inability to define supernatural comes from the inability to define natural."
Not at all. If you're defining it as anything that isn't natural, then you also need to define natural, or you haven't really given a definition at all.

"No one tries to prove natural causation, I agree. This is because natural causation is presumed from the beginning. That is what methodological naturalism is. Does natural events having natural causes prove that the natural world is all that there is?"
No, and I never said it does...

"I choose to believe in gravity because I feel that there is evidence for it. However, if there was evidence that attempted to prove that gravity is not real I would have to evaluate it objectively in order to judge the merit of the claim. If the claim was legitimate I would have to reconsider my beliefs. To say that there is no choice involved in beliefs makes it sound a lot like we are all indoctrinated."
If it is a conscious decision to believe, then you can also simply stop believing in gravity at will. Let's do a little experiment. Stop believing in gravity right now. You done it? Good. Now go jump off a roof. You're not going to do it are you? I wonder why that is? Could it be because you actually do still believe that things fall?

"How so?"
How do we? You obviously don't just think "Yep. I'm going to decide to believe in that now." No. You realise that the evidence is convincing, and this is what I think you're getting confused at.

"If you cannot choose your beliefs then you cannot choose to believe in something based on its rationality. Your brain reacts to the input and whether you believe it or not is simply a consequence of your brain responding."
Correct, but it does so based on the rationality of the evidence, and your reasoning. It simply isn't a conscious decision.

"If we cannot choose what we believe then the fact that we believe something to be fallacious has nothing to do with whether or not our reasoning is actually fallacious, but rather it is the result of your brain reacting to the input and causing a belief to be held. In that sense we cannot really trust or brain to produce a belief because it is true, but rather it is produced based on our brans reaction to the input. The question then would be does the brain produce beliefs because they are true? This wouldn't seem to be the case if we are presuming that the brain itself is a consequence of natural selection motivated by survival; our beliefs are likely held simply because they convey a selective advantage. It would then be reasonable to conclude that you are an Atheist because the atheistic methodology conveys a selective advantage to the brain."
Right, but this doesn't mean we can't then think about it and recognise it as fallacious. Are you really going to get into the "we can't trust our brains because they are aiming for survival, rather than reality"? What is best for survival is clearly knowing the most about reality. It is simply that we can't know certain things, so when we hear a noise, if we are a tiny bit more paranoid, then we will think it is a predator, even if it is not then you are more likely to survive. This is the only consequence of that. You would simply see agency and patterns when there aren't meant to be, and this explains a lot of people's beliefs in god as well.

"Clearly stupid because you don't like it."
Or because it is just plain wrong...

"Notice that I did not say that you have committed the fallacy in the conversation, but simply that you use the argument."
So please demonstrate that I do use it.

"If God exists then why doesn't everyone believe in God? God could easily make everyone believe him. The inability to reconcile this point is seen as positive evidence for Gods non existence. The fact that one does not know why everyone does not believe in God does not mean that there is not a reason for why God does not make everyone believe in him. This would be an Atheism of the gaps argument."
Nope. The problem of non-belief only works against gods that have a nature that mean that they would make you believe. For example, loving us an therefore not wanting us to go to hell and wanting us to go to heaven.

"There is so much evil and suffering in the world! If god was all loving and all powerful, why would he allow evil and suffering? He could easily end it all. The inability to reconcile this issue is seen as positive evidence for Gods non existence. However, the fact that evil and suffering exists and God does not simply end it does not mean that God does not exist. This would be an Atheism of the gaps argument."
It does mean that when his nature is logically contradictory to the fact...

"You wouldn't think so as someone who is an Atheist."
It's not about what I think. It's about what's true.

"How so?"
Well I experience being able to see long distances without seeing any unicorns. Them being invisible means that I wouldn't see them. Therefore, it is consistent. How is it inconsistent at all?

"Sure, but no one has ever attempted to clam that they experienced a leprechaun who revealed that the world was made from bodily secretions. This is an unfalsifiability fallacy."
But people have claimed that they have experienced a being who lives outside of time and space who revealed that he made the universe 6000 years ago. That is no less extraordinary a claim, and yet people believe it.
Even when you have people who think that god simply made the big bang happen, that is also unfalsifiable, but people believe that too.

"I find it odd that you bring up Christianity when the person who made the prediction was Jewish. Second of all, I'm not attempting to prove Christianity so let's stay on topic. My point about this prediction is that it is consistent with what we understand about our reality."
But this prediction has nothing to do with a god existing.

"I never said anything about the big bang, or that this is exactly what science says. I said that he was able to predict that our visible universe came from a single point by using the bible as his reference."
Except only with a very strange and loose interpretation of what it actually says.

"I'm not claiming to know that God caused the big bang; I'm not even arguing for the big bang theory in particular. Notwithstanding that, It's not a God of the gaps argument if I am offering another piece of evidence. Perhaps you don't think that the bible is valid, but I'm not simply filling a gap of knowledge with God did it. I believe that the bible is a historical document that can lead us to understand truths, and where science is incapable of answering questions such as how the universe came Into being I find that that the bible offers valid answers."
I can give answers that are just as "valid" as the bible, but that does not mean they are correct, or that it is rational to accept them.

"Not at all."
Yes at all. Please give the bible quote that he used to say that the universe was once a singularity then, and we will see just how loosely interpreted it is.

"The particles - which can be described as dust - required to form biological materials would have had to fall into this primordial body of water. Sounds consistent to me. You're free to disagree."
So what you're saying is basically that life started from very small stuff. Wow. That's quite the prediction...

"My point is that is it perfectly consistent with what we understand about the world. You are seeking natural causal explanations for events, while I am speaking about the agent that guided the process. I still expect that natural events have natural explanations so I look forward to filling in the gaps of our knowledge. However methodological naturalism does not necessarily show that metaphysical naturalism is true."
And nobody has ever said it did.

"I believe in free will and predetermination. But this is another discussion."
The two are literally opposites, unless you define one of them differently from how they are normally used.

"Of course it does. If the bible is said to be a divine testament that we can learn about God from, then I should be able to use it as a basis for understanding the world around me. One of those things that the bible says is that the universe is predetermined. This, along with the other points I have brought up give validity to the bible as being reliable source material."
The universe being predetermined is also completely consistent with a god not existing, and thus it is not evidence for a god existing. It can only be evidence when it actually eliminates other explanations, otherwise, you could say the universe existing is evidence that I can fly because the universe would need to exist for me to be able to fly.

"You said that people claim that they are experiencing the supernatural when they really aren't. How do you know that?"
I said they are not justified in doing so. I did not say that they weren't.

"Its more like waking up to a burnt hand and then trying to figure out how it happened. You could come up with a plausible scenario where you fell asleep by the counter and your hand fell into a boiling pot, but there could be other possibilities like someone put your hand into a billing pot on purpose but you were too drunk to remember, or you put your in hand in the pot deliberately as a dare. Science only explores one particular way of describing the world around us, but there are many other disciplines that we can gain knowledge and truth from"
Such as? Please give a method, other than investigating phenomena that we can reliably gain knowledge from. Hell, even if you can, please tell me how just feeling something to be true is a reliable method of determining what is true, which is exactly what the people who believe that they have experienced the supernatural are doing.

"Even if that were true that doesn't mean therefore metaphysical naturalism. You can take that leap of faith if you want"
Seriously, what is with you and trying to put words in my mouth. I even clarified my position a few times, so your continuing attempt to strawman me is getting rather irritating.

"This sounds like an Atheism of the gaps argument to me.
It seems like a bit of a double standard to say that you are allowed to make assumptions based on incomplete evidence, but if a believer does it it is a argument of the gaps"
That's because you simply aren't getting that science isn't claiming that anything exists as one of its assumptions.

"I asked what is incorrect about believing it, not whether or not the belief itself is incorrect."
If the belief is incorrect, then you are incorrect in believing it...

"That's an argument from ignorance"
Again, seriously? I didn't say your belief was wrong, but that you weren't justified. If there is no evidence for X, then you are not justified in believing X. That is not an argument from ignorance.
Add a comment...

Oscar Rivera

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Is my Argument for Jesus’ 
Resurrection Question-Begging? 

Question: 

Dr. Craig, 

Firstly, thank you for all that you do for the Kingdom. Your work has been a great encouragement to me since I came to faith in Christ a few years ago. 

Recently, in the March issue of the popular philosophy journal 'Think', Raphael Lataster attacks your argument from Jesus' resurrection as circular. The article is titled: "A PHILOSOPHICAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF WILLIAM LANE CRAIG'S RESURRECTION OF JESUS ARGUMENT". I know this argument appears on many online forums, and is a common one. He presents your argument as follows: 

1. There are three established facts about Jesus:
the discovery of his empty tomb, his postmortem
appearances, and the origin of his
disciples' belief in his resurrection. 

2. The hypothesis 'God raised Jesus from the dead' is the best explanation of these facts. 

3. The hypothesis 'God raised Jesus from the dead' entails that God exists. 

4. Therefore, God exists. 

He, among other things, argues that the argument is circular and begs the question as you presuppose God's existence in (2), which is the conclusion (4). (2) supports (4), but you only accept the plausibility of the resurrection hypothesis because of (4). If God didn't exist, then one wouldn't consider the resurrection hypothesis to be the best explanation. If, he argues, you refer only to a generic concept of God in (2) and the Christian God in (4), then you are guilty of the fallacy of ambiguity. Either way, he invites you to concede one of the two fallacies. 

He presents some other weak arguments - citing the most sceptical of scholars (Carrier, Price and Avalos, for example) - and arguing (with Hume) that miracles are, by definition, implausible. But the central idea is that the resurrection argument is fallacious. 

Would you be able to clarify what you mean by 'God' in each of the premises? And respond to the accusation of circularity? Lataster claims to be developing this criticism into a more scholarly form for his upcoming work, so it would be fantastic to know your response! 

Blessings in Christ, 

Matt 
UK 

Dr. Craig responds: 

Without having read the article in question, Matt, let me respond to this objection as you state it, since it is one that is sometimes repeated. 

I think that I am partially responsible for giving the appearance of begging the question by my employing the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection as an argument for theism (an argument, in effect, from miracles) in public debates over God’s existence. That is the argument referenced by Lataster. While the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection can be so presented, traditionally it is not part of natural theology but of Christian evidences. That is to say, it is not employed as a theistic argument, but as an argument for a Christian version of theism. Having proved the existence of God via the arguments of natural theology, such as the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, one turns to specific evidence, such as Jesus’ resurrection, for this God’s having decisively revealed Himself in Jesus. This is the approach I use in my more considered work, such as Reasonable Faith, chapter 8. But in public debates I’ll often include the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection as part of a cumulative case for theism for evangelistic purposes: I want to defend, not mere theism, but Christian theism. So I’ll include the resurrection as part of my case for theism, even though it is not, in my view, best included there. 

In my preferred presentation, there can be no question of my begging of the question, since one is not trying to establish theism, but presupposing it, having already established God’s existence via the arguments of natural theology. This two-step procedure will make it much easier to commend the Resurrection Hypothesis (RH) “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the best explanation, for one already knows that God exists. Please see the development of this approach in Reasonable Faith. 

In the debate presentation, there is still no begging of the question, though it will be harder to commend RH as the best explanation, since one will have to argue for the superiority of a supernatural explanation without the benefit of a prior proof of theism—not impossible to do, but harder. (I’m sure you can think of cases where a supernatural explanation would be the only reasonable explanation of a body of evidence.) 

It is inept to allege that “you presuppose God's existence in (2), which is the conclusion (4).” The only sense in which God’s existence is presupposed in (2) is that it features in the proposed explanation, just as, for example, the Higgs boson featured in its being the best explanation of the relevant evidence of particle physics or a black hole featured in its being the best explanation of astrophysical evidence. One postulates a new entity as part of the best explanation of the data to be explained. This is an unremarkable procedure. 

Now in assessing RH and its naturalistic competitors, I consider the standard criteria: explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, accord with accepted beliefs, ad hoc-ness, and outstripping rival hypotheses in meeting the criteria. These can be assessed independently of whether theism is true. You report that I “only accept the plausibility of the resurrection hypothesis because of (4).” That is obviously false, as a reading of my work will reveal. I defend the plausibility of RH on the basis of the religio-historical context in which it occurs. The one criterion where theism does become relevant is ad hoc-ness. This has to do with the number of independent hypotheses required by the explanation being assessed. If one has not already established theism, then RH becomes more ad hoc, since it requires the additional hypothesis that God exists. But this degree of ad hoc-ness is not unusual or unacceptable and may in any case be offset by the more important explanatory virtues of great explanatory scope and power. 

In short, there is no circularity in arguing that a miraculous explanation of certain data is the best—though your task will be much easier if you first establish theism to be true and appeal to miracle only to show God’s intervention in history at some point in attestation of a particular religious claim. 
#god #jesus #resurrection #christianity 
6
1
Lance G's profile photoTyler Wall's profile photo
Lance G
+
2
3
2
 
Craig is a genius. We're proud to have him.
Add a comment...

Oscar Rivera

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history. To prove this, we do not need to presuppose anything controversial (e.g. that miracles happen). But the skeptic must also not presuppose anything (e.g. that they do not). We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true. We do not need to presuppose that there really was an empty tomb or post-resurrection appearances, as recorded. We need to presuppose only two things, both of which are hard data, empirical data, which no one denies:  The existence of the New Testament texts as we have them, and the existence (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

The question is this: Which theory about what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday can account for the data.
#god #jesus #resurrection #tomb #evidence
14
3
Alex Stoute's profile photoOscar Rivera's profile photoLaFawn Jones's profile photomoges fentaw's profile photo
9 comments
 
Thanks +Mark McGee.
Add a comment...

Monique Zorzella

Apologetics Content  - 
 
There is considerable debate on Jesus' date of birth. It has been commonly agreed that he was most likely born in 4 B.C.E after the lunar eclipse on March 14th. However there is a possibility that he was born in 1B.C.E after the lunar eclipse on December 29th.

Here are a free excepts from the link below:

John Cramer writes "The key information comes, of course, from Josephus who brackets the death by “a fast” and the Passover. He says that on the night of the fast there was a lunar eclipse—the only eclipse mentioned in the entire corpus of his work. Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah indicate the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (mid-September to mid-October) and Passover on the 15th day of the first month (March or April) of the religious calendar. Josephus does not indicate when within that time interval the death occurred."

"Only four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September 15, 5 B.C., March 12–13, 4 B.C., January 10, 1 B.C. and December 29, 1 B.C. The first eclipse fits Yom Kippur, almost too early, but possible. It was a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after sundown, but it is widely regarded as too early to fit other information on the date. The favorite 4 B.C. eclipse seems too far from Yom Kippur and much too close to Passover. This was a partial eclipse that commenced after midnight. It hardly seems a candidate for being remembered and noted by Josephus. The 1 B.C. dates require either that the fast was not Yom Kippur or that the calendar was rejiggered for some reason. The January 10 eclipse was total but commenced shortly before midnight on a winter night. Lastly, in the December 29 eclipse the moon rose at 53 percent eclipse and its most visible aspect was over by 6 p.m. It is the most likely of the four to have been noted and commented on."

Suzanne Nadaf writes "John Cramer responds to Mr. Tempelman’s letter to the editor (“Queries and Comments,” BAR, January/February 2014) that Herod’s death occurred between a “fast” and Passover. Mr. Cramer acknowledges that the fast of Yom Kippur fits the eclipse but doesn’t fit the time frame of occurring near Passover. There is, however, another fast that occurs exactly one month before Passover: the Fast of Esther! The day before Purim is a fast day commemorating Queen Esther’s command for all Jews to fast before she approached the king. Purim fell on March 12–13, 4 B.C. So there was an eclipse and a fast on March 12–13, 4 B.C., one month before Passover, which would fit Josephus’s statement bracketing Herod’s death by a fast and Passover."

What are your thoughts on the birth date of Jesus?

1
Mark McGee's profile photoMonique Zorzella's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Mark McGee thanks. I added some commentary to the OP.
Add a comment...

About this community

Welcome to the Christian Apologetics Alliance! ***PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES. This group is actively moderated to protect and support unique, high-quality conversations.*** This community focuses on the topic of apologetics. “Apologetics” is giving a thoughtful, reasonable explanation for the truth of Christianity. Our goal is to help one another learn more about apologetics so we can have proper confidence in our beliefs and become more effective in evangelism. Posts on theology, politics, sermons, and devotionals—while valuable—are off-topic for this community. If you spam, post memes, religious or political propaganda, or other off-topic items, promote non-apologetic websites, insult other members, or engage in other negative behaviors, you will be removed. Please note that you can be removed from this group for both content and tone: both truth and love are required. Please click "read more" to see the rest of the guidelines. There are many different definitions of what it means to be a "Christian." For this particular group, participation is limited to those in agreement with the CAA Statement of Faith, as well as the denial of universalism. This group is intended to have an "evangelical" spirit to it, whether participants are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. When posting, please carefully select the proper tab for your post: JUST JOINED? Tell us who you are in the "Introductions/Hello" section. FIND A GREAT APOLOGETICS RESOURCE? Share it in the "Apologetics Content" section. The APOLOGETICS CONTENT section is for apologists to share about the ministry of apologetics. Posts and comments questioning Christian apologists about the Christian worldview should be shared in the CAA-SEEKER discussion section. APOLOGETICS VIDEOs or AUDIOs shared with the CAA community must be less than 15-minutes in length UNLESS it's from very well-known Christian apologists (e.g. Craig, Zacharias, etc). The "BLOGGING IDEAS" tab is for discussing how to run blogs well. The "MODERATOR UPDATES" tab will have occasional posts from the community’s leaders. "APOLOGETICS EVENTS" is for sharing upcoming conferences, debates, special courses, and online presentations. The "CAA-SEEKER DISCUSSION" group is for respectful, open discussion about the Christian worldview. This is also the one section where non-Christians who are sincere in their desire to learn about Christianity are invited to post and comment. We encourage you to INVITE YOUR FRIENDS to join the group (Use the "Invite People" button at the top right of the community page). Thank you for making this a valuable group for sharing great apologetics content, exchanging ideas, and having friendly conversation about these very important questions. This group is officially affiliated with the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Find us online at http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/ Thank you for joining! We look forward to many great discussions on apologetics!

James Wyss

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Here's a question for all you Thomists out there. Aquinas believed that the existence of God is not self-evident, that is it can be denied and is not immediately apparent to everyone. I have no problem with this. What I want to know, and I suspect the answer is yes, if God can be proven scientifically like so may atheists would prefer then wouldn't his existence be self-evident?
2
Rob Trindade's profile photoMS An Thrope's profile photo
15 comments
 
+Rob Trindade I watched the videos, you keep talking about an answer but you are not very clear about what the question is. Could you please expand on this.

Thank you
Add a comment...

Oscar Rivera

Apologetics Content  - 
2
1
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
Add a comment...

Bob Trube

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Interesting collection of papers by one of the giants of physics. The papers on the limits of science, phantom problems, causality, and his thoughts on religion and science will be of interest to apologists dealing with science and faith issues, whether you fully agree with him or not.
1
Add a comment...

Bob Trube

Apologetics Content  - 
 
A good book to give the lie to the idea that Christianity is simply Western.
3
Add a comment...

Oscar Rivera

Apologetics Content  - 
 
This is a list of Christian apologetic works.
From Antiquity to XXI century.
1
Add a comment...

Rob Trindade

Introductions / Hello!  - 
 
Hey!! I'm a random Christian from the native state of Cheesehead Nation (I know most of you are gone on Sunday, but you should still know that to be Packerland/Wisconsin) Some of my interests are health, biology, and typology. I want to ask questions and get/give answers if I can concerning apologetics, origins, and our beliefs.
4
Rob Trindade's profile photoMark McGee's profile photo
6 comments
 
+Rob Trindade Greetings and welcome! We look forward to your questions and comments. Please be sure to read the CAA Statement of Faith and Discussion Guidelines. Links to each are in the upper right corner of this page. Thanks!
Add a comment...

Echo Guzman

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Short video Science and Religion... Conflict, Myth: https://youtu.be/7Zl8zhNWZGQ
+Aaron Veverka+Tracy Leigh Powers+Kevin Mac​
6
Nat Tirion's profile photoEcho Guzman's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Nat Tirion Yes observable science is not in conflict. In fact all other branches of knowledge (history, philosophy, mathematics...) are not in conflict either. 
Add a comment...