Category Archives: Logic

Apologetics; The Ontological Argument for God…

I must admit, right off the bat that this philosophical argument for God, in its “simplistic” form is one of my least favorites, though when seen as a set of arguments for God, it makes much more logical sense.  As with the other two philosophical arguments I’ve already blogged on: The Teleological and Cosmological, this argument is presented as a “general” support for God, not religion specific.

St. Anselm is kind of the “go-to” philosopher for the Ontological Argument, and it revolves around that idea of God, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”  Then, through different logical arguments winds up with the conclusion that God must then exist.

If God is defined, not as just a definition, but as a being that is the most perfect being in existence, or the greatest being possible, then the argument goes that He does indeed exist.  Why?  Because God is the greatest or most perfect being, and it is greater to exist than to not, therefore God must exist.

To put it simplistically; which would you rather have a million imaginary dollars, or a million real dollars?  Which is greater?

The big argument against the Ontological argument for God comes in the form of a question; Is existence a “predicate?”  A predicate is a defining property or, if you like, a defining characteristic or attribute.  Does the fact of existence actually add anything meaningful to the idea of God?

Well…that is a good question if we stop at Anselm’s first argument, but if we continue to look at his arguments it becomes clear that there is logical reason to see God’s existence a predicate.  This “second” argument of Anselm’s revolves around this notion; God is a greater being if He cannot not exist; if His existence is necessary.  If His existence is necessary, then it would indeed be a predicate.

Basically the logical idea boils down to two possibilities; since God is not a limited being, either His existence is impossible or it is necessary.  The existence of God is not impossible, therefore because of His nature and the nature of existence, His existence is necessary.

To put it in the words of Norman Malcolm (1963), “If God, a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, does not exist then He cannot come into existence or have happened to come into existence, and in either case He would be a limited being, which by our conception of Him He is not.  Since He cannot come into existence, if He does not exist His existence is impossible. If he does exist He cannot have come into existence (for the reasons given), nor can He cease to exist, for nothing could cause Him to cease to exist nor could it just happen that He ceased to exist.  So if God exists His existence is necessary.  Thus God’s existence is either impossible or necessary.  It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or in some way logically absurd.  Assuming that this is not so, if follows that He necessarily exists.” (Knowledge and Certainty: Essays and Lectures)

Breathe.  Take your time and read it over again slowly…it definitely is a logical argument that can confuse if read too fast.  The first time I read the Ontological argument it felt as though someone was trying to pull the wool over my eyes, or just simply put one over on me.  It takes some time to really grasp the logical argument in all of this.

Scriptural backing for this philosophical idea from a Christian perspective?  I find the most compelling parallels in the very names of God, such as I AM that I AM, and also titles such as “The Almighty.”  The first shows God’s self-existence, and the second shows His supremacy over all things created.

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God…

The idea of God as the ultimate being is readily apparent as well:

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

His necessity is also clear, when we read of Him being The Creator of all things;

Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So, both we as humans define God in a certain way even just on a philosophical level, and God Himself has revealed to us that He is indeed the greatest being possible, that His existence is necessary, and that He does indeed exist.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Logic, Names of God, Philosophy, Theology

Proof surrogates and the Fed Bailout Plan…

I had to figure out an excuse to blog about the Fed Bailout Plan, so I’ll throw in a Logic lesson.  I’ve already blogged on some other rhetorical devices, and here’s another: Proof surrogates.

A proof surrogate is worded in such a way as to try to convice others that you’ve offered actual reason, evidence, or proof for something, when indeed you haven’t.  Examples of proof surrogates include; “everyone knows,” “people say,” “studies show” (without giving the actual studies or authors), “clearly,” “it’s obvious,” or just repeating the same thing over and over to try to be convincing, etc….

The spokespeople in the congress are providing a lot of proof surrogates, as well as those in the news media.  The politicians are at a loss as to why their constituents do not want this bill passed.  Well…at this point it is because the American people are being logical, and asking for actual reasons and explanations of this whole mess.  I firmly believe we aren’t against aiding the system, per se, it just feels like we are receiving a whole lot of rhetoric, and not enough info.

If I hear the proof surrogate, “this important piece of legislation” one more time, I’m going to throw up (that’s hyperbole, by-the-way, I’m not really going to throw up).  That’s the point; we don’t know if it is an important piece of legislation or not…no one is giving us real evidence or info.  This is non-partisan; both sides are doing it.

“If we don’t pass this important piece of legislation, it will be bad…really bad.”  Yeah, that’s convincing.

If the Gov’t was really interested in getting the people on board with this they need to hire at least two people; an independent (not connected politically) business genius, and an independent psychologist to come up with an advertisement or spot that can be ran on the media outlets.  They would do a much better job giving us actual facts about the business implications, and do it in a way that we would pay attention to, and care about. (Oh, for a Ross Perot graph!  Never thought I’d say that.)

I understand the fundamentals, but that’s not good enough in this case.  Why?  Because they are taking my money to do it, an if there’s one thing I know about finances is that you don’t blindly give your money to someone else to invest for you, unless you know alot about them and what they are going to do with your cash…and yes, that may be a big problem…we know what the Gov’t likes to do with our money…

“This is going to affect main street, not just Wall Street.”  Proof surrogate.  Precisely how is it going to affect main street.  It’s going to limit the amount of money we can borrow from banks…it limits our credit.  Well!  Wasn’t all this fast and loose credit how we got into this in the first place?  Give me more details!  Why don’t we loan the taxpayers money to those small businesses instead of those big businesses that lost all their money through poor management and bad loans?  Go interview someone that knows something, throw in some interviews with an actual middle class person that this is destroying their lives right now, even as we speak…oh, wait, the stock market was up today…

I have no doubt that the economy is bad.  I have no doubt that the greed of those in positions of power in these private companies did bad things.  I also know people are living too far above their means, taking out loans that they never should be taking out, and our gov’t wants us to be a bunch of consumers.  I’m sure a good plan could be devised that doesn’t turn us into a bunch of socialists, and that preserves the free market I know and love…and maybe this bailout plan is it, but we wouldn’t know because we are being treated like children, and to logical arguments with real evidence is being presented to us.

Get on the ball Washington!

2 Comments

Filed under Logic, Of Interest

Two great videos on the cell…

Here is a vid from several years ago, you’ll need to click on the link to read the article and watch the video.  Cellular Visions.

The second vid was posted by VipChannel on youtube, my hubby “The ‘Shrink” spied it first, and put it up on his blog; Intelligent Design:

We are truly without excuse! Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, Logic, Of Interest, Origins

Critical Thinking; Euphemisms vs. Dysphemisms…

It’s been a while since I gave a miniature logic lesson, so today I thought I’d talk about Euphemisms and Dysphemisms.  Rhetorical devices, and rhetoric in general, are often employed to try to “slant” the hearer’s or reader’s perspective on something.  Remember, rhetoric employs psychological or emotionally persuasive language, without giving an actual reason for a conclusion.

Euphemisms and Dysphemisms are two rhetorical devices that are quite common.  A Euphemism is a “positive” spin; it takes a word, phrase, or concept and makes it sound either neutral or more positive.  For example, we spin “death” and “died” more positive or neutral by phrases like, “bought the farm,” or “he’s pushing up daisies.”  Car dealerships no longer sell “used cars” they sell “pre-owned vehicles.”

On a more serious note, you can see it in politics, and political situations.  I once saw a news cast about a band of militia in some country where there was an uprising, within about fifteen minutes, three different people were interviewed; to one person the militia was referred to as a group of “freedom fighters.”  The next person interviewed referred to them as “guerrillas” and the final person referred to them as “terrorists.”  Three different words evoking different emotional and psychological reactions within the hearer.

That brings me to dysphemisms; they are the “negative” slant.  So in the above example, the “freedom fighter” phrase would be a euphemism, and the “terrorist” phrase would be a dysphemism, just as an example.  Notice that the phrased could be considered accurate as long as the idea or word in question truly meets the definition of those words; for example, there is a time and a place to truly label someone a terrorist, as long as the definition is truly met.

Also, just because they are rhetorical devices doesn’t mean you can dismiss whatever argument that they are used in out of hand; it is just important to note that people do use terms to sway hearers’/readers’ emotions as that is a part of being a critical thinker.

How does this apply to the Christian, or Christian Apologist’s POV?  There are a lot of dysphemisms that non-believers employ…oftentimes just to insult, or try to get a rise out of Christians.  One of the more popular ones in this day and age amongst atheists online, for whatever reason, is labeling Christianity a “death cult.”  How is this a dysphemism?  Because it employs emotionally and psychologically charged language, and has no evidence to back it up, and in fact, the evidence clearly contradicts the label.

Be on the lookout for these two rhetorical devices, and even look up some more examples so that you can more easily spot when someone is attempting to sway you with words…and remember that words do indeed have power to get people to react.  This is something that politicians have known for a long long time; we will surely get treated to many examples of euphemisms/dysphemisms in the upcoming presidential election coverage; especially at the conventions.

2 Comments

Filed under Logic, Religion and Politics

The Reliability of the Bible…

One question that comes up in many Apologetics discussions is the reliability of the Biblical manuscripts.  In this post, I am not going to go into detail, as others have already done so.  What I am going to do is give an overview of why this is important, and also give resources for everyone to utilize.

First a word about a common misunderstanding.  Many times, atheists and other non-believers will accuse Christians of circular logic.  They present a straw man which says, “Christians always refer to the Bible as evidence of God, and they use the Bible as evidence for the Bible which is circular.”  Now, I personally haven’t read any Christian doing this; what I do see often is fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of the atheist/non-believer as to what the Bible actually is, and why we cite it as evidence, and why it can indeed be cited as evidence.

The Bible is not a single document.  It is a collection of ancient documents into one binding; there is a distinct difference.  These documents often have different authors and are written at different periods of time; they are not one solid document that someone can accuse of trying to “prove itself.”  This would be like entering into a conversation about the formation and continuation of the United States government.  In this discussion, one person pulls out a book titled: Political Documents of the United States.

Within this single book is a collection of many US documents; The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, The Records of the Continental Congress, etc…  Then, the person they are dialoging with says, “You can’t use that as a reference, or as evidence when talking about the formation and continuation of the US Government!  Political Documents of the United States is just used to prove itself, that’s circular logic!”

So, a basic understanding of the composition of the Bible is needed; it is a collection of manuscripts authored by around 40 human authors (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).  It’s contents were written over a large span of time, and in different languages, mainly Hebrew and Greek.  Then these manuscripts were collected together into one volume; The Bible.  Using various historical manuscripts to support other historical manuscripts is not “proving itself.”

There is also discussion about how these particular manuscripts made it into the collection.  Many non-believers try to make this into some huge conspiracy, while the Roman church tries to use it as proof that they are the one true church, and them alone; some fundamentalist Christians act as though God handed the KJV in it’s final form to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  The truth is that it was a very organic and logical process, though the inclusion of some of the books were debated.  I just read a good description of the process in Ravi Zacharias’ new book; Beyond Opinion.   In fact, the very first chapter of Ravi’s book is devoted to “Postmodern challenges to the Bible,” written by Amy Orr-Ewing.

In general, certain criteria were met, and as these criteria were met, the books eventually came to be “canonized” formally, though many of the books were already recognized as canon.  (The criteria were things like; authorship by an apostle or an immediate follower of an apostle (which obviously included dating), church usage, etc…)

Are the documents reliable?  Are they accurate?  Can you trust the Eyewitness accounts in the NT? There are many good resources for these questions here are only a few:

Online resource examples;Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament Reliability on CARM,  The Textual Reliability of the New Testament from Tekton, Miscellaneous Questions on the Text of the Old Testament from Tekton, Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, Archaeology and the New Testament from Apologetics Press,  Is scripture a “faithful record” of historical events? from Apologetics Press, etc… etc…

Other resource examples; The New Testament Documents by F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, Trial of the witnesses by Thomas Sherlock, General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix, Can I trust the Bible? by D. Bock & R. Zacharias, and also examples of general resources that touch upon Biblical matters: The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, The Case for Christ by Strobel, etc… etc…

These resources are for everyone; believers, skeptics, anyone interested in Biblical apologetics.  What I offered here is not even a drop in the bucket of information available on this topic.  One of the most frustrating things in Apologetics can be talking to people who glean all their knowledge of the Bible from proselytizing atheistic websites that have lists of points to try to bring up in a debate.  Why is it frustrating? Because the answers are readily available to all, and are very easy to find, and also it shows, to me, that the person isn’t really wanting an answer, no…they are trying to proselytize their own beliefs.

Take the time to study the Bible.  It can be trusted and is highly reliable; historically, prophetically, internally, archaeologically, etc…  The resources I gave above have many other resources cited in their notes, so, keep digging and studying.  The Bible can stand up to all scrutiny.

8 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Logic, The Bible, Uncategorized

Pascal’s Wager…Redux

If you want to get a large segment of fundamentalist atheists stirred up when you are dialoguing with them, mention good ol’ Pascal and his wager; it works almost every time. Quite frankly, I can’t blame them really, I used to react in a similar fashion as a believer, albeit with humor rather then mocking disdain. When I first read about and studied Pascal’s idea, I laughed. I completely understood what Pascal was getting at, but my first thought was that I could not believe that anyone would come to faith by it, and my second was; what faith would they come to?  Many of my college students ask the same thing in my Intro to Philosophy course.

However, over time, I’ve changed my mind. Why? Interestingly enough, I “met” someone online who came to believe in God because of the wager. And, the person is a well known (not extremely famous) actor from Hollywood. (He’s a full fledged and post-happy member of one of the smaller message boards I used to frequent daily, if not hourly.) He’s a “good” man; smart, witty, nice, great sense of humor, and very into politics…and happens to have come to belief via the wager.  So, if it turns out that there is but even one soul that winds up being saved because of the wager, it is worth it.

The second reason I no longer laugh good naturedly at the wager, is that I finally looked at it for what it was, and only as what it claimed to be within the limits of Pascal’s own philosophy (which I don’t entirely agree with). The key is remembering that it is supposed to be a wager…it is placing a bet. When placing a bet, it is logical to look at all known possible outcomes, factor in known variables, and then place your bet. Here’s a quote from Blaise himself,

“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? …You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”

So, to avoid Pascal’s fallacy of begging the question; you basically have two main splits: the side that says the world is purely materialistic; naturalistic philosophies come under this heading.  The other side says there is indeed something beyond the mere physical.  The first choice, or cut, is clear…if you believe something exists and nothing really does, you haven’t lost a thing.  So, you might as well come down on the side of “something.”

Once you are there, it is a logical matter of exclusivity.  Out of known religions (it doesn’t make logical sense to entertain unknown ones) which ones have deity/deities that desire acknowledgment, or perhaps worship, or else you get a bad ending?  We can cross many religions/spiritual beliefs off the list right off the bat; for example, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, many of your native/aboriginal peoples’ beliefs…even Judaism, for Gentiles at least, etc…

Then, if I’m going to place my bet (which is basically one’s soul), then I’m probably going to do some research and see which faiths are still viable.  If God is God, you’d want to wager on one that can keep a religion going, or at least I’d logically rather bet on one that could… and the list gets narrowed down quite a bit.  Which religion has the most evidence for the truth of it?  Many claim to have sacred scripture; which of those has reliable, historical documents, if prophecies are contained therein, which have come true, etc…  Blaise Pascal, from all appearances, would have been betting on the Christian God, this is one of the reasons that many criticize Pascal’s wager, but I believe if people do the logical reasoning, it does come down to a clear choice.

Now, I don’t believe in God based upon Pascal’s wager, and I don’t recommend anyone else place all of their eggs just in that basket as Pascal left it; though if the logic works for you, by all means do!  But, his basic idea of betting on an outcome, does have logical grounds, if looked at as an actual gamble.  I don’t believe that Pascal’s wager, in and of itself, offers an airtight basis for believing, but I do think it is enough to make people think, at least it should; I think it is an interesting way to get people to at least contemplate the afterlife.  From there it is a matter of research, study, and yes, perhaps a bit of prayer.

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Logic, Philosophy

Apologetics: The Disciples…

In this post, I’ll be discussing one of the evidences for the Resurrection via a look at the Disciples themselves.

  1. What message did the Disciples preach?
  2. What we can learn by looking at the change of attitude and personality of the disciples pre and post-Resurrection, and their manner of death.
  3. Examining how their deaths are fundamentally different than the deaths of believers of other faiths and beliefs.

The Disciples were eye witnesses of the happenings around Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. They were Jesus’ close companions and had first-hand knowledge of His claims. After Jesus’ crucifixion they preached Him raised. Not only that, they preached Him raised amongst other eye witnesses to Jesus’ life and death, even in the very city where He was crucified!

This is Peter speaking in front of the crowd, post Jesus’ resurrection, in Jerusalem:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Paul speaks of this quite clearly as well:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
15:11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Study the Resurrection, it is the lynchpin of the Christian Faith. A lot of my POV on this is from Dr. Gene Scott; who lost his faith in college, then studied the resurrection for three years knowing that either these disciples were preaching a lie, or they were preaching the truth. At the end of those three years, he closed the last book with the knowledge that Christ had risen indeed.  Here is a write up from a sermon, as one will be able to tell, I formed a lot of my ideas from Doc’s different sermons touching upon the resurrection of Christ: http://www.pastormelissascott.com/pdf/Resurrection.pdf

If Jesus came out of that tomb, then we too can have faith in Him and His Father. Jesus claimed He would raise, so that is the question to answer – did He? We have other evidence that the body was missing, we know that in Matthew we have a popular theory crop up from the disbelieving Priests:

28:11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
28:12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
28:13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

28:14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

So, we have the Disciples preaching Jesus had risen and in fact they preached He walked and talked and even ate with them after the Crucifixion. Remember, they were His close companions in life, eye witnesses to His teaching, death, and resurrection. We also know that the disciples were persecuted both directly after the resurrection, and in centuries later.

Now, we examine the evidence of the changing Disciples, let’s look at some examples:

We’ve got Peter. Before the resurrection Peter denied the Lord three times for the sake of his own skin. He fled and hid, he could not be counted on. After the Resurrection, and then the coming of the Spirit, Peter finally fulfills the name Jesus gave him and becomes so firm in the faith he could not be intimidated. He came out in front of the hostile crowd at Pentecost and proclaimed Christ risen. How did Peter die? Crucified upside down for his teachings.

We’ve got John. One of the Sons of Thunder, as Jesus called the brothers. He’s one of the pair that asked the Lord this:

Luke 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
9:53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did ?
9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Beloved John, ready to burn the unbelievers for their unbelief. We also have record of these Sons of Thunder being so bold and prideful to ask Jesus to be seated at His side…not only this, they sent their momma to ask Him for them. What happens to John after the Resurrection? He becomes the Apostle of Love, so from Son of Thunder to the Apostle of Love. How does John wind up? He is banished for his unmovable, un-recanted teachings, based on the fact that Christ rose from the dead.

We’ve got Thomas. Skeptics love Thomas, as they should. The problem comes in when they don’t let Thomas teach them. Good ol’ doubting Thomas. Thomas doubted the Lord the whole time he walked with Him. He questions everything. After the Lord was resurrected we see Thomas questioning again. He’s not going to be happy ’til he physically touches Jesus. After the Resurrection what do we have? Thomas never questioning the Lord again, taking the Faith to India, never waivering put to death by spear (some reports a sword) proclaiming the Resurrection of our Lord.

We’ve got many other examples amongst the disciples; Bartholemew flayed to death with a whip in Armenia for proclaiming the Resurrection, Andrew crucified, Luke hanged, Mark dragged to death.

We’ve got Paul; number one persecuter of the Christians. Loathed Christians, hated them. Jesus knocks him on his behind in the dirt, appears to him resurrected and Paul is a new man.

These men were changed folks. Fundamentally, their very personalities changed. What changed them? They, all but perhaps one, were too scared even to be at the crucifixion of the Lord, hiding…but then what?! The Resurrection. Then what? These men willing to put all on the line for what they literally witnessed with their own two eyes.

These disciples died alone, thousands of miles apart from each other. They died horrible deaths for their eye witness testimony. Did these men back the wrong horse, a dead man, and perpetuate a known lie? Or were they telling the absolute truth, a Truth they were willing to die for? They claimed and taught not just a faith, or a belief, they taught a FACT. That Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ate with them, that Thomas put his hand on Him, etc… They never ever waivered!! I’ve also heard several atheists/agnostics admit that these men did indeed change, and that they can’t explain why, but it couldn’t have been because of the resurrection, because miracles can’t occur, therefore it didn’t occur, and anyone who says they did is wrong, because miracles can’t occur, therefore they didn’t occur, and anyone who…. Basically they fell pray to circular logic in an attempt to explain away the changes in these men.

Some say, “Well, what about all those other people that died for their religion?” In my college Logic class I teach all about comparisons. One of the first rules in comparisons is to ask some very important questions, the main one being; are the two things even comparable? In this case, these eye witness disciples deaths are not even comparable to the deaths of others defending their religions, even modern Christian martyrs. How so?

All those other people died for firm belief, no doubt about it. Early muslims died for a belief, they died for their faith, they died for what they thought was the truth. Atheist skeptics would have us believe these Disciples of Christ would have died for a known lie. Again, how is this different? The Disciples didn’t spread the Gospel based on teachings, belief, faith, or private revelations from God, they spread the Gospel based on an Historical Event, or FACT, or Person that they claimed to be eye witnesses to — the Resurrected Christ.

There is no such objective, historical event, objectively varifiable at the time, that the Muslims, or any other believer has died for; the Muslims died for the belief that Muhammed has received instruction from God via private revelation, and for those beliefs passed on. We have the disciples preaching this FACT of the Resurrection to individuals who were free to go check out their story. The preaching of Jesus’ resurrection was spread during all of these eyewitnesses lifetimes. These radically changed men did not die for a known lie that they had concocted.

So, with the Disciples as eye witnesses, with the Disciples who gave up their lives for the message of the Resurrection, I too proclaim that Christ is risen! I too proclaim that this Historical Fact withstands the test of time! And I too proclaim that with Christ as our example we can hang our bodies and souls on the Promises of the Father. Our faith and beliefs are not blind, as skeptics would have other believe, but are based on historical events, logic, reason, and the Grace of God.

For all the skeptics reading this, go make your own serious study of these facts, and make your choice.  For those of you who do not trust the reliability of the witnesses in all of this, here is a good bit of free reading: Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf; “Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Conversion, Logic