.jpg)
Many people in the world think that Satan is the one ruling in Hell and he's the one dishing out the punishments there. Therefore some think that they'll hopefully get on Satan's 'good' side to escape punishment from him.
But in this helpful 2 minute clip, John MacArthur explains that the Scripture speaks otherwise about who is ruling Hell.
Skeptics sometimes ask when they hear that a Christian believes in God, "Do you believe in Santa Claus too?" Is that a far enough criticism or have they made an error in logic?
Watch the following video where Dr. William Lane Craig responds to this objection.
Many people object to Christians saying "Why can't you be tolerant of other people's viewpoints?" But what exactly does tolerance mean?
Find out in this 2 minute video by William Lane Craig.
.jpg)
Does someone have to check their brain at the door in order to become a Christian? In this 2-minute video, Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason, addresses this question and outlines what the Biblical definition of faith is.
By Dr. William Lane Craig
"Man," writes Loren Eisley, "is the Cosmic Orphan." He is the only creature in the universe who asks, Why? Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions. "Who am I?" he asks. "Why am I here? Where am I going?"
Ever since the Enlightenment, when modern man threw off the shackles of religion, he has tried to answer these questions without reference to God. But the answers that came back were not exhilarating, but dark and terrible. "You are an accidental by-product of nature, the result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence. All you face is death. Your life is but a spark in the infinite darkness, a spark that appears, flickers, and dies forever."
Modern man thought that in divesting himself of God, he had freed himself from all that stifled and repressed him. Instead, he discovered that in killing God, he had also killed himself.
Against this background of the modern predicament, the traditional Christian hope of the resurrection takes on an even greater brightness and significance. It tells man that he is no orphan after all, but the personal image of the Creator God of the universe; nor is his life doomed in death, for through the eschatological resurrection he may live in the presence of God forever.
This is a wonderful hope. But, of course, hope that is not founded in fact is not hope, but mere illusion. Why should the Christian hope of eschatological resurrection appear to modern man as anything more than mere wishful thinking? The answer lies in the Christian conviction that a man has been proleptically raised by God from the dead as the forerunner and exemplar of our own eschatological resurrection. That man was Jesus of Nazareth, and his historical resurrection from the dead constitutes the factual foundation upon which the Christian hope is based.
Of course, during the last century liberal theology had no use for the historical resurrection of Jesus. Since liberal theologians retained the presupposition against the possibility of miracles which they had inherited from the Deists, a historical resurrection was a priori simply out of the question for them. The mythological explanation of D. F. Strauss enabled them to explain the resurrection accounts of the New Testament as legendary fictions. The belief in the historical resurrection was a hangover from antiquity which it was high time for modern man to be rid of. Thus, in liberal theology's greatest study of the historicity of the resurrection, Kirsopp Lake's The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1907), Lake carefully plots the legendary development of the resurrection narratives from the root historical event of the women's visit to the wrong tomb. He concludes that it is not the end anyway: what is vital for Christian theology is the belief in the immortality of the soul, the belief that our departed friends and relatives are still alive and that in time we shall be re-united with them. Thus, the NT has been replaced by the Phaedo.
Liberal theology could not survive World War I, but its demise brought no renewed interest in the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, for the two schools that succeeded it were united in their devaluation of the historical with regard to Jesus. Thus, dialectical theology, propounded by Karl Barth, championed the doctrine of the resurrection, but would have nothing to do with the resurrection as an event of history. In his commentary on the book of Romans (1919), the early Barth declared, "The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle-that is, without really touching it." Existential theology, exemplified by Rudolf Bultmann, was even more antithetical to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. Though Bultmann acknowledged that the earliest disciples believed in the literal resurrection of Jesus and that Paul in I Corinthians 15 even attempts to prove the resurrection, he nevertheless pronounces such a procedure as "fatal." It reduces Christ's resurrection to a nature miracle akin to the resurrection of a corpse. And modern man cannot be reasonably asked to believe in nature miracles before becoming a Christian. Therefore, the miraculous elements of the gospel must be demythologized to reveal the true Christian message: the call to authentic existence in the face of death, symbolized by the cross. The resurrection is merely a symbolic re-statement of the message of the cross and essentially adds nothing to it. To appeal to the resurrection as historical evidence, as did Paul, is doubly wrong-headed, for it is of the very nature of existential faith that it is a leap without evidence. Thus, to argue historically for the resurrection is contrary to faith. Clearly then, the antipathy of liberal theology to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection remained unrelieved by either dialectical or existential theology.
But a remarkable change has come about during the second half of the 20th century. The first glimmerings of change began to appear in 1953. In that year Ernst K�semann, a pupil of Bultmann, argued at a Colloquy at the University of Marburg that Bultmann's historical skepticism toward Jesus was unwarranted and counterproductive and suggested re-opening the question of where the historical about Jesus was to be found. A new quest of the historical Jesus had begun. Three years later in 1956 the Marburg theologian Hans Grass subjected the resurrection itself to historical inquiry and concluded that the resurrection appearances cannot be dismissed as mere subjective visions on the part of the disciples, but were objective visionary events.
Meanwhile the church historian Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen in an equally epochal essay defended the historical credibility of Jesus' empty tomb. During the ensuing years a stream of works on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection flowed forth from German, French and English presses. By 1968 the old skepticism was a spent force and began dramatically to recede. So complete has been the turn-about during the second half of this century concerning the resurrection of Jesus that it is no exaggeration to speak of a reversal of scholarship on this issue, such that those who deny the historicity of Jesus' resurrection now seem to be the ones on the defensive. Perhaps one of the most significant theological developments in this connection is the theological system of Wolfhart Pannenberg, who bases his entire Christology on the historical evidence for Jesus' ministry and especially the resurrection. This is a development undreamed of in German theology prior to 1950. Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead.
What are the facts that underlie this remarkable reversal of
opinion concerning the credibility of the New Testament accounts
of the resurrection of Jesus? It seems to me that they can be
conveniently grouped under three heads: the resurrection
appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian
faith. Let's look briefly at each.
First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.
At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.
Second, the empty tomb. Once regarded as an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment to Christian theology, the empty tomb of Jesus has come to assume its place among the generally accepted facts concerning the historical Jesus. Allow me to review briefly some of the evidence undergirding this connection.
(1) The historical reliability of the burial story supports the empty tomb. If the burial account is accurate, then the site of Jesus' grave was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, it is a very short inference to historicity of the empty tomb. For if Jesus had not risen and the burial site were known:
(a) the disciples could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus. For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms. In the words of E. E. Ellis, "It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, 'grave emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle."
(b) Even if the disciples had believed in the resurrection of Jesus, it is doubtful they would have generated any following. So long as the body was interred in the tomb, a Christian movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead man would have been an impossible folly.
(c) The Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair. The quickest and surest answer to the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus would have been simply to point to his grave on the hillside.
For these three reasons, the accuracy of the burial story supports the historicity of the empty tomb. Unfortunately for those who wish to deny the empty tomb, however, the burial story is one of the most historically certain traditions we have concerning Jesus. Several factors undergird this judgment. To mention only a few.
(i) The burial is mentioned in the third line of the old Christian formula quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.4.
(ii) It is part of the ancient pre-Markan passion story which Mark used as a source for his gospel.
(iii) The story itself lacks any traces of legendary development.
(iv) The story comports with archeological evidence concerning the types and location of tombs extant in Jesus' day.
(v) No other competing burial traditions exist.
For these and other reasons, most scholars are united in the judgment that the burial story is fundamentally historical. But if that is the case, then, as I have explained, the inference that the tomb was found empty is not very far at hand.
(2) Paul's testimony supports the fact of the empty tomb. Here two aspects of Paul's evidence may be mentioned.
(a) In the formula cited by Paul the expression "he was raised" following the phrase "he was buried" implies the empty tomb. A first century Jew could not think otherwise. As E. L. Bode observes, the notion of the occurrence of a spiritual resurrection while the body remained in the tomb is a peculiarity of modern theology. For the Jews it was the remains of the man in the tomb which were raised; hence, they carefully preserved the bones of the dead in ossuaries until the eschatological resurrection. There can be no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites pre-suppose the existence of the empty tomb.
(b) The phrase "on the third day" probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. Very briefly summarized, the point is that since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come to date it "on the third day?" The most probable answer is that they did so because this was the day of the discovery of the empty tomb by Jesus' women followers. Hence, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day. Thus, in the old Christian formula quoted by Paul we have extremely early evidence for the existence of Jesus' empty tomb.
(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark's passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:
(a) Paul's account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul's own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.
(b) The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say "The President is hosting a dinner at the White House" and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.
(4) The story is simple and lacks legendary development. The empty tomb story is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be characteristic of a later legendary account. Perhaps the most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yea". In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. These are how real legends look: unlike the gospel accounts, they are colored by theological motifs.
(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role of women in Jewish society.
(a) Woman occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as "Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women" and "Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female."
(b) The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women, whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and the gospels accurately record this.
(6) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb.
One could go on, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate why the judgment of scholarship has reversed itself on the historicity of the empty tomb. According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.
Finally, we may turn to that third body of evidence supporting the resurrection: the very origin of the Christian Way. Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus. The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of these earliest disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. The question now inevitably arises: how does one explain the origin of that belief? As R. H. Fuller urges, even the most skeptical critic must posit some mysterious X to get the movement going. But the question is, what was that X?
If one denies that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must explain the disciples' belief that he did rise either in terms of Jewish influences or in terms of Christian influences. Now clearly, it can't be the result of Christian influences, for at that time there wasn't any Christianity yet! Since belief in Jesus' resurrection was the foundation for the origin of the Christian faith, it can't be a belief formed as a result of that faith.
But neither can the belief in the resurrection be explained as a result of Jewish influences. To see this we need to back up a moment. In the Old Testament, the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgment is mentioned in three places (Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26, 19, Daniel 12.2). During the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the belief in resurrection flowered and is often mentioned in the Jewish literature of that period. In Jesus' day the Jewish party of the Pharisees held to belief in resurrection, and Jesus sided with them on this score in opposition to the party of the Sadducees. So the idea of resurrection was itself nothing new.
But the Jewish conception of resurrection differed in two important, fundamental respects from Jesus' resurrection. In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person.
With regard to the first point, the Jewish belief was always that at the end of history, God would raise the righteous dead and receive them into His Kingdom. There are, to be sure, examples in the Old Testament of resuscitations of the dead; but these persons would die again. The resurrection to eternal life and glory occurred after the end of the world. We find this Jewish outlook in the gospels themselves. Thus, when Jesus assures Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again, she responds, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11.24). She has no idea that Jesus is about to bring him back to life. Similarly, when Jesus tells his disciples he will rise from the dead, they think he means at the end of the world (Mark 9.9-13). The idea that a true resurrection could occur prior to God's bringing the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the world was utterly foreign to them. The greatly renowned German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias writes,
Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa (glory) as an event of history.
The disciples, therefore, confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.
As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains:
For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)
It is therefore evident that the disciples would not as a result of Jewish influences or background have come up with the idea that Jesus alone had been raised from the dead. They would wait with longing for that day when He and all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory.
The disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection, therefore, cannot be explained as the result of either Christian or Jewish influences. Left to themselves, the disciples would never have come up with such an idea as Jesus' resurrection. And remember: they were fishermen and tax collectors, not theologians. The mysterious X is still missing. According to C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University, here is a belief nothing in terms of previous historical influences can account for. He points out that we have a situation in which a large number of people held firmly to this belief, which cannot be explained in terms of the Old Testament or the Pharisees, and these people held onto this belief until the Jews finally threw them out of the synagogue. According to Professor Moule, the origin of this belief must have been the fact that Jesus really did rise from the dead:
If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?. . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church. . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself.
The resurrection of Jesus is therefore the best explanation for the origin of the Christian faith. Taken together, these three great historical facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, the origin of the Christian faith--seem to point to the resurrection of Jesus as the most plausible explanation.
But of course there have been other explanations proffered to account for the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. In the judgment of modern scholarship, however, these have failed to provide a plausible account of the facts of the case. This can be seen by a rapid review of the principal explanations that have been offered.
A. The disciples stole Jesus' corpse and lied about the resurrection appearances. This explanation characterized the earliest Jewish anti-Christian polemic and was revived in the form of the conspiracy theory of eighteenth century Deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. To name only two considerations decisive against it: (i) it is morally impossible to indict the disciples of Jesus with such a crime. Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly good, earnest men and women, not impostors. No one who reads the New Testament unprejudicially can doubt the evident sincerity of these early believers. (ii) It is psychologically impossible to attribute to the disciples the cunning and dering- do requisite for such a ruse. At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, fearful, doubting, and burdened with mourning-not mentally motivated or equipped to engineer such a wild hoax. Hence, to explain the empty tomb and resurrection appearances by a conspiracy theory seems out of the question.
B. Jesus did not die on the cross, but was taken down and placed alive in the tomb, where he revived and escaped to convince the disciples he had risen from the dead. This apparent death theory was championed by the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century German rationalists, and was even embraced by the father of modern theology, F. D. E. Schleiermacher. Today, however, the theory has been entirely given up: (i) it would be virtually impossible medically for Jesus to have survived the rigors of his torture and crucifixion, much less not to have died of exposure in the tomb. (ii) The theory is religiously inadequate, since a half-dead Jesus desperately in need of medical attention would not have elicited in the disciples worship of him as the exalted Risen Lord and Conqueror of Death. Moreover, since Jesus on this hypothesis knew he had not actually triumphed over death, the theory reduces him to the life of a charlatan who tricked the disciples into believing he had risen, which is absurd. These reasons alone make the apparent death theory untenable.
C. The disciples projected hallucinations of Jesus after his death, from which they mistakenly inferred his resurrection. The hallucination theory became popular during the nineteenth century and carried over into the first half of the twentieth century as well. Again, however, there are good grounds for rejecting this hypothesis: (i) it is psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs; but in the disciples' case the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting. The disciples had no anticipation of seeing Jesus alive again; all they could do was wait to be reunited with him in the Kingdom of God. There were no grounds leading them to hallucinate him alive from the dead. Moreover, the frequency and variety of circumstances belie the hallucination theory: Jesus was seen not once, but many times; not by one person, but by several; not only by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locale and circumstance but at many; not by believers only, but by skeptics and unbelievers as well. The hallucination theory cannot be plausibly stretched to accommodate such diversity. (ii) Hallucinations would not in any case have led to belief in Jesus' resurrection. As projections of one's own mind, hallucinations cannot contain anything not already in the mind. But we have seen that Jesus' resurrection differed from the Jewish conception in two fundamental ways. Given their Jewish frame of thought, the disciples, were they to hallucinate, would have projected visions of Jesus glorified in Abraham's bosom, where Israel's righteous dead abode until the eschatological resurrection. Thus, hallucinations would not have elicited belief in Jesus' resurrection, an idea that ran solidly against the Jewish mode of thought. (iii) Nor can hallucinations account for the full scope of the evidence. They are offered as an explanation of the resurrection appearances, but leave the empty tomb unexplained, and therefore fail as a complete and satisfying answer. Hence, it seems that the hallucination hypothesis is not more successful than its defunct forebears in providing a plausible counter-explanation of the data surrounding Christ's resurrection.
Thus, none of the previous counter-explanations can account for the evidence as plausibly as the resurrection itself. One might ask, "Well, then, how do skeptical scholars explain the facts of the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith?" The fact of the matter is, they don't. Modern scholarship recognizes no plausible explanatory alternative to the resurrection of Jesus. Those who refuse to accept the resurrection as a fact of history are simply self-confessedly left without an explanation.
These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred.
Source: William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth 1 (1985): 89-95.
By Ryan Hemelaar
A lot of people ask: 'How do I know whether Heaven and Hell really exists?' Well, there are two methods to rationally prove the existence of Heaven and Hell, and how one enters Heaven. This in turn proves why Christianity in particular is the only religion that is true.
(1). This method relies on the Moral Argument for God's Existence. Please read that argument to know what it is, if you are unfamiliar with it.
The moral argument not only proves God, but also proves that God is good. So that when a good God looks down on this Earth and sees all these horrible atrocities occurring (like people murdering and raping), since He is good, He cannot turn a blind eye to the crimes being committed. And since it seems justice is not always carried out on this Earth, it must happen after we die. Therefore, there must be a place of punishment after we die (we call that Hell) and a place of no punishment (we call that Heaven). But a good judge won't just punish murderers and rapists, He'll have to punish all acts of injustice, even thieving and lying.
So it seems that we've all done at least something wrong in our life (either by lying, stealing, lusting, etc), so that means we are deserving of going to Hell. And the good deeds that we do don't merit us anything in front of a good judge, because a good judge would never accept a bribe. Just like if you murder somebody, you can't say to the judge, "I admit I murdered that person, but look at the good works I've done - helping the poor, working for charities. Can you let me go?" If the judge were to let the criminal go free, He would be a corrupt judge. A good judge cannot be corrupt.
So it seems we have no hope of getting to Heaven. This is where Christianity steps in as being in a league of its own. For Christianity says that 2000 years ago, Jesus came down and died on the cross. He died to pay the penalty for our sins that we deserve in Hell, He can take it on the cross for us. That way, God's justice is satisfied and we can go to Heaven when we die. But He doesn't automatically apply it to everyone, you must do two things. Firstly, you must trust that the only reason why you will get to Heaven is that Jesus died on the cross for you, that means that you don't trust in your good works or own morality to get you to Heaven, but only in Jesus' death. Secondly, out of gratitude for what Jesus' has done for you, you will strive to turn from your lifestyle of sinning. If you do those two things, you will go to Heaven when you die.
(2). The second method of proving the existence of Heaven and Hell relies on the Argument for the Resurrection.
This argument proves that Jesus rose from the dead and therefore, that is an authentication to the things that Jesus was teaching. Jesus taught that when you die you will be judged by God and be sent to either Heaven or Hell. Therefore, there is an afterlife. And Jesus taught that how one gets to Heaven is the same what is written above.
So the question is now, since rationally there must be a God, an afterlife, and Christianity is true, what will be your response? If you repent (turn from your lifestyle of sinning) and trust in Christ's death on the cross, you will go to Heaven when you die.
Below is an interactive flash presentation from the Apologetics Study Bible on the Cosmological argument for God's Existence. To go onto the next slide, click the arrow on the bottom right hand side of the screen.
Click the play button to begin the presentation.
Below is an interactive flash presentation from the Apologetics Study Bible on the Moral argument for God's Existence. To go onto the next slide, click the arrow on the bottom right hand side of the screen.
It may take a few moments for the presentation to load (743KB file).
The moral argument not only proves God's existence, but it also proves that God is good.
By Ryan Hemelaar
Where would an archive of the 'Proofs for God' be without the good old ontological argument? St Anselm developed the argument in 1074 and it can be summarised as follows:
Soon after developing his argument, Gaunilo objected to it because he said if someone thinks of the greatest conceivable island, that too must exist. However, Gaunilo's example of the greatest conceivable island is not equivalent, as Alvin Platinga points out:
No matter how great an island is, no matter how many Nubian maidens and dancing girls adorn it, there could always be a greater — one with twice as many, for instance. The qualities that make for greatness in islands — number of palm trees, amount and quality of coconuts, for example — most of these qualities have no intrinsic maximum. That is, there is no degree of productivity or number of palm trees (or of dancing girls) such that it is impossible that an island display more of that quality. So the idea of the greatest possible island is an inconsistent or incoherent idea; it's not possible that there be such a thing.[1]
Over the centuries there has been many objections to Anselm's argument, yet no conclusive defeater has been found. That is why Anselm's argument lives on even to this very day.
But there have been other ontological arguments developed throughout the centuries, one of which bases itself on modal logic, such as below:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. To have necessary existence is greater than to have contingent existence.
4. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4a. If a maximally great being exists only in some possible worlds and not all possible worlds, then the maximally great being's existence is contingent.
4b. A maximally great being however cannot be both necessary and contingent in their existence (law of non-contradiction).
5. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
A possible world does not refer to a planet or even a universe, but rather to a way reality might be.
It might surprise you to learn that premises 2-6 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial[2]. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, allknowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
[1] Platinga, A. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) God, Freedom and Evil, p. 90 – 91.
[2] Craig, W. (Illinois: Crossway, 2008) Reasonable Faith, p. 185.
By Ryan Hemelaar
The first premise seems obviously true as it is deeply rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To say that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing I think is worse than magic. For at least in magic, you have the magician and maybe a hat, but here you have nothing being caused by nothing, yet coming into existence. It seems absurd.
However, some people try to object by saying, "Ah, so that means God would have to have a cause as well". Simply, no. Remember, the first premise is: "Everything that has a beginning has a cause", God never had a beginning, thus needs no cause. I'll explain later in this article why God cannot have a beginning.
Now I will present two philosophical arguments and one empirical argument as to why the second premise is true, that the universe had a beginning.
A distinction needs to be made here from things that are potentially infinite, and those that actually are. For example, a line of finite distance could potentially be subdivided infinitely. You can just keep on dividing parts in half forever, but you will never arrive at an actual "infiniteieth" division. Now the first premise asserts, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
If actual infinities could occur in reality, absurdities would occur. For instance, let's take a look at David Hilbert's brain-child, appropriately dubbed, 'Hilbert's Hotel'. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are all occupied. A new guest arrives at the hotel wanting to check in, and the clerk says, "Why of course!" and shifts the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 to room 3, the person in room 3 to room 4 and so on... So that means room 1 has become vacant and the guest gladly checks in.
But now let's suppose that an infinite number of the new guests arrive to this fully occupied hotel asking for rooms to stay in. The clerk says, "Of course, we can fit you in", and proceeds to move the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 into room 4, the person in room 3 into room 6, and so on (by moving the existing guests to a room that is double their old room number). We see that now all the odd-numbered rooms become free (doubling of any number becomes even) and the infinite number of guests happily move into their rooms. Yet all the rooms were occupied before the guests arrived.
We see that the hotel clerk's actions are only possible if the hotel is a potential infinite, such that new rooms are created to absorb the influx of guests. For if the hotel has an actually infinite number of rooms and all the rooms are full, then there is no more room. Therefore, an actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality. A beginningless universe has an infinite number of past events, therefore, the universe has a beginning.
Now the second philosophical argument I will present does not deny that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. However it argues that a collection of an infinite number of things cannot be formed by successive addition. The argument can be stated as follows:
The first premise is obvious. If the universe never had a beginning then in order for us to have arrived at today, temporal existence has had to traverse an infinite number of past events, one event after another. However before the present event could occur, the event immediately prior would have to occur, but before that one could occur, the event prior to that one has to occur, and so on ad infinitum. So as one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, no event could ever occur as they are all dependent on a prior event. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could have never occurred, which is absurd. But the present has occurred so thus there must have been an independent cause at the beginning, also known as a first cause. Being the first cause, it therefore must be uncaused (meaning it can have no beginning, it must always be).
The second premise can also be described as the impossibility of counting to infinity. For if we count each new element that we add to a collection, we can always add one more. Therefore, one can have a potential infinity, but can never reach an actual infinity.
Someone might say that while it is impossible for a collection to reach an infinite number of items by having a beginning and adding members one by one, an infinite could be formed by never beginning but having an ending point. However, this view seems equally absurd, for if you cannot count to infinity, why would you be able to count down from infinity?
Imagine if someone counted down from infinity one number per day, and they finally finished counting today. The question I want to ask is, why did they only finish counting down today? Why not yesterday, or the day before, or a year ago? For since the same amount of time would have had elapsed on any of those other days as today, namely an infinite amount of days. In fact, if we look back at any day in past, we should see the person will have already finished, which is absurd.
Since an actually infinite number of things cannot be reached by successive addition, it shows that there are not an infinite number of past events, meaning the universe had a beginning and there must be a first cause.
Now I will turn to a discussion regarding the empirical proof for the second premise. The second law of thermodynamics states that anything left to itself will tend towards more disorder/entropy. Since the universe is a closed system, the amount of entropy in the universe will be constantly increasing. So therefore, if the universe was infinite in age by never having a beginning, the amount of entropy in the universe would be an infinite amount. The universe should be at complete equilibrium with uniformity everywhere, and with absolutely nothing occurring. Is the universe in such a state today? Obviously not. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Now that we have firmly established that the two premises in the Kalam Cosmological argument are more plausibly true than false, the conclusion necessarily follows that the universe has a cause. The next step is to discover, what can we know about this cause? Well, obviously the cause must be outside both space and time, so thus immaterial and timeless. If the cause is timeless then the cause must also be changeless, as changes can only happen within time. A changeless being can never change, so that is another reason why God cannot have a beginning.
But not only can we know that the cause of the universe is transcendent, but I would contend that it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect, such as the universe? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the first event are present from eternity then the effect should exist from eternity as well, that is to say, the universe should be eternal. But as we've seen, that is impossible. The only way for a timeless cause to create an effect in time is if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the universe in time. So not only are we brought to a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful cause, but also to a personal Creator. This, as Thomas Aquinas would say, is what everybody defines as "God".
For more information on this argument, please see Dr. William Lane Craig's book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
By Ryan Hemelaar
Recently there was a Muslim evangelistic lecture held in Brisbane's City Hall and unfortunately I was unable to attend. This lecture was also advertised as having a Q&A period where anyone could ask the lecturer about Islam. So I asked a Muslim friend if he could email my questions to the Muslim lecturer because recently I have come across some logical inconsistencies with Islam, so I was wondering whether they would be able to be resolved or not.
The lecturer was Sheikh Yusuf Estes, a popular Muslim apologist that claims to be an Ex-Christian preacher.
My initial email:
My three arguments about Islam are as follows:
Argument from Allah's Justice
- Allah is claimed to be just in the Qur'an (6:115).
- Allah is not just in reality.
- Therefore, Allah does not exist (using law of non-contradiction within logic).
To support the second premise, the Haddith states that if a person becomes a Muslim, Allah will not punish them for the sins they have committed before they were a Muslim (Saheeh Muslim #121 & Mosnad Ahmad #17357). Thus, Allah does not satisfy the demands of the law and is not just.
Argument from the Gospel
- The Qur'an states that the gospel of Jesus was given by Allah (3:3; 5:46).
- The gospel of Jesus is that Jesus died and rose from the dead and that we can be saved through faith in him.
- The Qur'an denies the truth of the gospel of Jesus.
- The Qur'an states that Allah words cannot change (6:34; 6:115; 10:64).
- Therefore, the Qur'an is not a revelation of God (using law of non-contradiction within logic).
To support the second premise: "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
To support the third premise: Surah 4:157 states that Jesus was not crucified.
Argument from Jesus' Crucifiction
- The Qur'an states that Jesus not really die on the cross, but rather Allah made it appear as though he did (4:157).
- Fooling someone to believe something that is not true, is decieving.
- Therefore, Allah is a deciever, and thus a sinner like me and you.
- The Qur'an states that Allah is the most holy one (62:1).
- Therefore, Allah does not exist (using law of non-contradiction within logic).
I can support each premise further if you require it. I am looking forward to hearing back from you.
Ryan Hemelaar
Dr. Yusuf Estes' response:
I have read the so-called questions and "logical" conclusions being made by some critic of the Quran and promoter of the "Gospel". Let me share with you some important considerations, inshallah.
Real questions do not contain false statements and "pretend arguments". Not all everyone who uses big words is a "scholar". Some pretend to have knowledge about logic and religion, when in fact they have neither.
Here are some real facts about real religion (use your own real logic):
1. English did not exist at the time of any of the prophets. (The Normans invaded the Saxons in 1066 A.D. and then began the English language). Therefore, no document could have contained a single word of English. Logical conclusion: we cannot have this discussion quoting documents in English.
2. The language of Jesus (real name: Essa) was Aramaic. Mel Gibson went to Syria to have the last people on earth still speaking this language to help him have the right words for his movie, "The Passion of Christ". Therefore, any discussion of any text or speech from Jesus (Essa) must be in Aramaic (or at least a similar language from Semitic roots such as Hebrew or Arabic).
3. There is no extant document attributed to Jesus (Essa) nor any of his followers, nor any of their followers. Therefore, we have nothing to discuss about what Jesus may or may not have said, based on statements coming decades later after he left this earth.
4. True scholars of the Bible, like Bart Ehram (author of "Misquoting Jesus"), tell us "We do not have a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of any authentic manuscript from the Bible. Therefore, according to manuscript scholars, the "Gospel" does not exit and has not existed for nearly two thousand years.
5. Today, there are many "versions" of the so-called "Bible" (the word "bible" is actually from Koine Greek "biblios" and it just means "book"). These many "books" have variant and different chapters, different verses, added verses, missing verses and mixed up wording and even different meanings of words. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant Bible came out of the Catholic Bible and the "Protestants" (opposing the church) threw out 7 books, leaving only 66 and some of these they changed around. Therefore, the Protestant Bible cannot be the "real" Bible in any language.
Logical conclusion: Since we cannot produce the real "book", we cannot have a "logical" discussion about something that does not exist.
Now let us consider the Quran:
1. The word "Quran" in Arabic language means "recitation". Therefore, it must be "recited" in Arabic to be the actual Quran.
2. The "Quran" is recited today in the Arabic language. Therefore, it still exists.
3. People still memorize it, in Arabic, from mouth to ear, just as it was recited and passed down for centuries in the past. Therefore, it is a "Quran" (recital).
4. Over a billion people scattered all across the earth are reciting it exactly the same as each other, line for line, word for word, letter for letter without having to compare to each other for revision. Therefore, this must be a mighty document of some sort.
5. 90 Percent of all of the reciters of the Quran are not Arab speakers, yet they are reciting and memorizing this huge recital from beginning to end in Arabic without different versions or variant chapters or verses. Therefore, this is unlike any other recital on earth.
6. More than 10,000,000 people living on the earth today, from many different cultures, countries and languages have memorized the entire Quran, in Arabic. Therefore, The Quran must have some amazing appeal and attraction to these people.
7. Statements in the Quran over 1,400 years ago regarding many areas of science have proved to be totally accurate and discovered only recently, have caused even atheist scientists to come to believe the Quran must be from some Higher Power or Intelligent Designer. Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write.
8. Quran makes challenges to the disbelievers, if they are in doubt about it, then bring a book like it. Another challange says, bring 10 chapters like it. And another tells the disbelievers if it were from other than Allah they would find in it many contradictions. And they have never found one. Therefore, The Quran is what it claims to be (A Recitation from The Creator).
9. These people will make us things, misquote things, twist things and give their own interpretations to things which are already clear. They will lie and when they are caught, they will deny.
Therefore, they are not what they claim to be (scholars).
Conclusion: The Quran is not the problem here; their disbelief is the real problem.
The Quran states in the very beginning, in Chapter 2, regarding disbelievers, "Whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe."
So, keeping that in mind, I will simply tell you, the way the questions were presented are so out of touch with reason, so laughable, no one would bother to entertain such nonsense as a serious discussion.
Let the person who made this up enjoy themselves while they can. Be patient, smile and say, "Thank you for asking about my religion. Please take a free copy of the Quran, learn the Arabic language and then when you have understood what you are reading, come back and let us have a worthwhile and meaningful discussion. Until them, have a nice life."
Peace - salam alaykum - to all seeking guidance, ameen.
Yusuf Estes
My reply:
Hi Yusuf,
I've responded to a number your points below:
1. English did not exist at the time of any of the prophets. (The Normans invaded the Saxons in 1066 A.D. and then began the English language). Therefore, no document could have contained a single word of English. Logical conclusion: we cannot have this discussion quoting documents in English. I'm sorry, that conclusion does not logically follow. The Bible has been translated into English so people who speak English can read it. On the other hand, I agree it is a good thing to look at what the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts say to get a more precise meaning. However that does not mean we cannot quote scripture in the vernacular.
2. The language of Jesus (real name: Essa) was Aramaic. Mel Gibson went to Syria to have the last people on earth still speaking this language to help him have the right words for his movie, "The Passion of Christ". Therefore, any discussion of any text or speech from Jesus (Essa) must be in Aramaic (or at least a similar language from Semitic roots such as Hebrew or Arabic). However the New Testament documents (which record Jesus' life and sayings) were written in Greek, so we should look at what they say.
3. There is no extant document attributed to Jesus (Essa) nor any of his followers, nor any of their followers. Therefore, we have nothing to discuss about what Jesus may or may not have said, based on statements coming decades later after he left this earth. That is a blatant falsehood. All the epistles and gospels were written by followers of Jesus (and many of them also physically followed him as well). Additionally, the New Testament documents were written not too long after Jesus' ascension. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 15, Paul points out who Jesus had shown himself to after being risen from the dead, and one of the groups consisted of over 500 people, then he says: "of whom most are still alive today." So if Paul was making it up, it would be so easy for them to check with one of those witnesses to see if he was telling the truth and if not, Christianity would be shown to be a fraud and die away. And undoubtedly they did check with those witnesses, but Christianity did not die because Jesus was truly risen and the witnesses couldn't deny it.
4. True scholars of the Bible, like Bart Ehram (author of "Misquoting Jesus"), tell us "We do not have a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of any authentic manuscript from the Bible. Therefore, according to manuscript scholars, the "Gospel" does not exit and has not existed for nearly two thousand years. Firstly, Bart Ehrman has been dismissed by the consensus of Biblical scholarship as being completely wrong. He is very left field. Secondly, we have very extensive Biblical manuscript evidence that we can know to a very high degree of certainty what the original manuscripts said. The verses I quoted which expel what the gospel is are not questioned at all (even by Bart), so thus my original argument still stands.
5. Today, there are many "versions" of the so-called "Bible" (the word "bible" is actually from Koine Greek "biblios" and it just means "book"). These many "books" have variant and different chapters, different verses, added verses, missing verses and mixed up wording and even different meanings of words. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant Bible came out of the Catholic Bible and the "Protestants" (opposing the church) threw out 7 books, leaving only 66 and some of these they changed around. Therefore, the Protestant Bible cannot be the "real" Bible in any language. The Catholic Bible includes 7 extra books because it also includes the apocrypha. These books were not accepted by the early New Testament Church as being scripture and only appeared in some Bibles at a later date. In fact by the end of the second century, the Church had already agreed that the books we have in standard Bible today are Scripture, because they meet the specific requirements.
Also, make sure you remember that the English Bibles we have today are not infallible, but rather they just translations from the original language. Just like the Qur'an has been translated into English, (and there are quite a few translations), so has the Bible (and there are many translations as well). So we should go to the original language if we want to get a more precise meaning, but because careful translating work has been performed on the Bible, we can read the English ones to get the meaning of the Scripture.
Logical conclusion: Since we cannot produce the real "book", we cannot have a "logical" discussion about something that does not exist. Your premises are not validated, so thus the conclusion does not logically follow.
1. The word "Quran" in Arabic language means "recitation". Therefore, it must be "recited" in Arabic to be the actual Quran.
2. The "Quran" is recited today in the Arabic language. Therefore, it still exists. I agree that the Qur'an exists, but the critical question is, is it true?
3. People still memorize it, in Arabic, from mouth to ear, just as it was recited and passed down for centuries in the past. Therefore, it is a "Quran" (recital).
4. Over a billion people scattered all across the earth are reciting it exactly the same as each other, line for line, word for word, letter for letter without having to compare to each other for revision. Therefore, this must be a mighty document of some sort. However, that is false. I can name at least seven authoritative readers (eg: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, etc) where there are a massive amount of variations. In the Islamic 4th century, due to the fact that Arabic lacked vowel signs and diacriticals (to distinguish between certain consonants) it was decided to return to readings from these authoritative readers, with two transmitters to ensure accuracy.
So then, what do we see across the world today, do Muslims recite the exact same text? Warsh's transmission of Nafi's reading is prominent in Algeria, Morocco, West Africa and Sudan. But Qalun's transmission of Nafi's reading is prominent in Libya, Tunisia, and parts of Qatar. Yet they are different. One Muslim Scholar said: "Certain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died." (Cyril Glassé)
5. 90 Percent of all of the reciters of the Quran are not Arab speakers, yet they are reciting and memorizing this huge recital from beginning to end in Arabic without different versions or variant chapters or verses. Therefore, this is unlike any other recital on earth. If a person can recite the Qur'an (which must be in Arabic), then they would be an Arabic speaker. So your premise is literally self-refuting.
6. More than 10,000,000 people living on the earth today, from many different cultures, countries and languages have memorized the entire Quran, in Arabic. Therefore, The Quran must have some amazing appeal and attraction to these people. Sure, there may be some appeal to it, but that does not make it true. There are a lot of novels that appeal to a lot of people. If you think it makes it true, that commits the fallacy argumentum ad populum.
7. Statements in the Quran over 1,400 years ago regarding many areas of science have proved to be totally accurate and discovered only recently, have caused even atheist scientists to come to believe the Quran must be from some Higher Power or Intelligent Designer. Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write. Well I've actually read the proofs for Islam and I find them very unconvincing. I've read "A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understand Islam" by I.A. Ibrahim. The Qur'anic texts it tries to quote to prove its point, do not say what they want it to say.
8. Quran makes challenges to the disbelievers, if they are in doubt about it, then bring a book like it. Another challange says, bring 10 chapters like it. And another tells the disbelievers if it were from other than Allah they would find in it many contradictions. And they have never found one. Therefore, The Quran is what it claims to be (A Recitation from The Creator). However, I have found contradictions within it (Allah's justice, etc). And that is why I wanted you to respond to them, but you hardly talked about them at all!
9. These people will make us things, misquote things, twist things and give their own interpretations to things which are already clear. They will lie and when they are caught, they will deny. Therefore, they are not what they claim to be (scholars). Please show me where I may have misquoted verses from the Qur'an or whatever. I want to know.
Conclusion: The Quran is not the problem here; their disbelief is the real problem. However, you are yet to respond to my original objections against Islam...the Qur'an is still the problem because once again, your premises in this argument are false.
"So, keeping that in mind, I will simply tell you, the way the questions were presented are so out of touch with reason, so laughable, no one would bother to entertain such nonsense as a serious discussion." Ok then sir, show me which logical fallacies I committed. Because currently, all my arguments still stand.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Hemelaar
This is the response I got from Fuwaad Mohammed of Discover Islam Australia that he sent to my Muslim friend:
you can see that it is quite obvious that this person has mind up his mind and does not want honest answers. He speaks about being logical with the Quran and Islam but doesnt want to apply it Christianity and the Bible.
When a person makes room in himself/herself for fair discussions and objective talk, there can be progress, when he seals his mind from accepting anything else such as this persons case, there will not be any progress. Instead we make dua to Allah to guide him.
We do not want to waste our time with this individual who is taking you for a ride. The sheikh doesn't want to respond to him any more as well. I suggest you read your mates emails and the sheikhs and you yourself will get a fair idea of where the shaikh stands.
May Allah reward you for your efforts - please keep in mind that just because we are able to prove a point doesnt mean that a person will accept Islam. Muhammad (PBUH) perfomed miracles in front of the Quraish yet they disbelieved. For them is their deen and for us ours.
You see that is the best Muslims have. Sheikh Yusuf Estes hardly even responded to any of my initial arguments. But rather he just went on the offence against the Bible, however he lacked any real factual evidence. If these logical inconsistencies within Islam cannot be resolved, even by leading Muslim apologists, I cannot understand how any rational person could continue to be a Muslim once they learn about these internal contradictions.
On the other hand, Christianity suffers from no logical inconsistencies. And if someone brings one up, we would be more than happy to examine it to see if it is true.
An argument that I have personally heard atheists make all the time is the ‘all powerful contradiction’, which they think somehow disproves the existence of God.
Their argument goes something along these lines:
This argument is logically valid in its structure, however because two of the premises are demonstrably false, the conclusion 'God does not exist' does not follow. If the atheist wants to use this argument, they must firstly prove why the first and second premises are true.
"If God is all powerful then he can prevent all suffering"
This premise recognises that God is all powerful. That is, He is omnipotent. However, the atheists fail to remember that omnipotence has historically always been defined as 'being able to do everything that is logically consistent'. So that means, God cannot create square triangles or God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The logical progression in this premise is that God 'can prevent all suffering', however that it is not true because it would be logically impossible for God to do that. I'll explain.
From a Biblical worldview we see the explanation of why there is evil and suffering in the world. The Bible says: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1), and this world was free from evil and suffering. It was a world that was perfect. Then into this perfect world God placed man and woman. This man and woman were told that they could do anything they want, except for one thing, and that was eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now, since God created this world, He is in charge, and He makes the rules. It comes with being a Sovereign. And, one would think that if Adam and Eve truly loved their Creator, then they would do as He asked. Yet, they didn’t, they rebelled against God, and ate of the tree. So because of this one act of rebellion, sin, death, evil and suffering all entered into the world.
God was not the author of this suffering, but rather man’s own rebellion, and man’s own free choice caused suffering enter into the world (Rom. 5:12). For it is impossible for God to make a free creature do something forcefully. Otherwise, the creature would not be truly free.
"If God is good then he must prevent all suffering"
Yes, God is good. However, that does not mean He must prevent all suffering. Suffering is not always a bad thing. Such when a child does something wrong and the parent discipline's the child, that temporal suffering is actually beneficial for the child. It is because the parent loves the child that they discipline them.
But someone might object by saying, what about those instances of apparently gratuitous evil, that is, pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result? However, what position are we in to say that God has no morally sufficient reason for permitting suffering? In order for this premise to be plausibly true, someone needs to know that God has no such reason.
In fact, the Bible says that persecution has the benefit of producing perseverance, character and hope (Rom. 5:3). The book of Hebrews even lays out that "the Lord disciplines the one he loves" (Heb. 12:6).
Evil Proves God's existence
Ironically, the existence of evil in the world is actually a proof of God's existence! The argument is outlined as follows:
When I say 'objective moral values', I mean that things that are moral or immoral independent of whether someone believes that they are or not. So I can say the Holocaust was objectively evil, even though Hitler thought what he was doing was right. Or even if Nazi Germany won World War 2 and brain-washed the rest of the world into believing what they did was right, it would still be objectively wrong.
The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,
"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory."
However, objective morals do exist, and even this argument from evil that atheists bring up acknowledges that objective morals do exist. They are relying on the premise that there are actually evil things in the world in order to disprove God's existence. But their argument failed and evil is evidence for God because the argument I presented is logically valid and the premises are plausibly true, so thus the conclusion is necessary and inescapable, that God exists.