|
|
Post by fluke on Sept 8, 2012 13:16:58 GMT -5
I dreamed the other night that I went to a William Lane Craig debate. After he trounced his opponent, he sought me out in the audience to invite me to dinner. The dinner quickly turned into a job interview. He was asking me about my time in seminary and my work in theology and apologetics. He said, "Just one more question, Frank. Would you like to-"
And then I woke up, just as he was about to offer me a position at Reasonable Faith.
|
|
earthtrekker
New Member
"The heavens declare the glory of God."
Posts: 48
|
Post by earthtrekker on Sept 10, 2012 9:03:10 GMT -5
In what ways are you involved in apologetics now?
|
|
|
|
Post by fluke on Sept 10, 2012 20:45:46 GMT -5
I was a member of apologetics.org back when it still had its forum. Right now, I'm an associate pastor and doing the Wed night study as a course in apologetics. Most of my apologetics writing lately can be found on at the Hermeneutics Stack Exchange with a quick link to my answers at this link. |
|
earthtrekker
New Member
"The heavens declare the glory of God."
Posts: 48
|
Post by earthtrekker on Sept 11, 2012 6:56:08 GMT -5
Great. I do a little on college campuses with the pro-life Genocide Awareness Project. Mostly using human nature as (not just evidence, but) proof of God's existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluke on Sept 11, 2012 8:43:28 GMT -5
Would that be along the lines of the moral argument?
P1. If there is no God, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
P2. But objective moral values and duties exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.
|
|
earthtrekker
New Member
"The heavens declare the glory of God."
Posts: 48
|
Post by earthtrekker on Sept 11, 2012 11:10:33 GMT -5
As I see it C does not follow because of the structure of P1, but it the argument could be valid if written differently. I prefer to begin with the existence of human will which can be verified by the individual and then bring out the moral argument to show that Will as such is not diffused in all of nature (the universe is alive), which would be a Hindu/Buddhist perspective. Some students (a few) are bright enough to know that to maintain their atheism, they must deny human will, which is silly, of course.
"If you consider the evolutionary forces necessary to form human will, those forces would look a lot like God."
|
|
|
|
Post by fluke on Sept 11, 2012 14:19:19 GMT -5
What do you see wrong with P1?
It's the contrapositive of (and logically equivalent to) "If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists." When P1 is worded like that, the whole syllogism is a simple modus ponens.
Unfortunately, I have met atheists who are willing to deny their free will (all actions coem from our DNA!) to hang on to their atheism. Sad.
|
|
earthtrekker
New Member
"The heavens declare the glory of God."
Posts: 48
|
Post by earthtrekker on Sept 11, 2012 19:28:14 GMT -5
You are right about the contrapositive. In considering C, I was confused by doubting P1, as if there could be some other basis for objective moral values, which I sometimes argue as far as possible before my bluff is called. As in the discussion: "Without using religious arguments, prove to me that homosexuality is morally wrong."
|
|
