In case it hasn't occurred to anyone we have begun to transcend the arguments for God's existence based on strict observation of pure scientific discoveries and have now entered the realm of philosophy and logic. Tomorrow night we will attempt to complete our analysis of the Craig/Atkins debate. It will entail a high-level overview of a number of questions.
- For what is the scientific method unable to account? (I.e. what can it not explain?)
- On the atheist view, what are the possible explanations for testimonies about miracles; whether pertaining to Christ or modern medical exceptions?
- Are the resurrection accounts impossible to refute? If so, why can one be a confident believer?
- Why, if theism is correct, doesn’t logic command the adherence of the academic community? Why is there so much skepticism?
- What is the principle of “simplicity” in logical argumentation?
- Why is “God” required in order to believe in objective moral values?
- If miracles were important to demonstrate the deity of Christ, why does he not still perform them?
- On the basis of atheism, what is the foundation to expect uniformity of physical laws which are required to perform science?
- If objective moral values exist, why can Christians not agree on them?
- On atheism, how can we be objective on any issue?
- Why do Christians believe Christianity to be the only true faith?
- Isn’t it a leap of reason to install a “God” as the cause for the universe? Couldn’t there be any number of possible causes?
No comments:
Post a Comment