The Secret Is Revealed

As I posted in “So What’s This All About?”, I started writing this blog because I was spending so much time writing long posts on Frank Turek’s I’ve been known to write posts on that site that had to be posted in multiple installments because of their length. With the same effort, I could simply start my own blog.

Even after starting this blog, I’ve continued to interact with atheists and non-believers on that site. A week or so ago, I received an email from Dr. Turek. This has happened before; he has, on occasion, sent a brief email to encourage me or to acknowledge a point that I made in my posts. This time, the email contained a bit more than a virtual pat-on-the-back.

Dr. Turek has offered me the opportunity to become a blogger on Trusting that God will not open a door without equipping me to walk through it, I’ve accepted the offer. This means an instant and dramatic increase in readership… by several orders of magnitude! No pressure! I’ll be blogging alongside two men I highly respect, Dr. Turek himself, and J. Warner (Jim) Wallace, who runs the site, as well as a few others

My first post, “Do Objective Moral Truths Exist in Reality?” appears tomorrow. The frequency of my posts is not likely to change. I may post regularly for a month, and then remain silent for several more. I will most likely cross-post my articles to this site, and I will continue to post non-apologetics-related work here as well.

To my readers who are believers, I ask for your prayers. The responsibility we have as apologists to the truth cannot be overestimated. I have no desire to champion a false idea because it is appealing to me. Nor have I the desire to suppress any truth that is unappealing to me. We do service to neither the cause of Christ, nor our own credibility by fleeing the truth.

To my readers who are unbelievers, I ask for a fair hearing. I sincerely believe the words I write. While we may disagree on these issues, I simply ask that you consider the ideas presented honestly and fairly.

That Which Is Eternal

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about eternal things. It is trivially obvious that something must always have existed, for if there had ever been a point at which absolutely nothing existed, then the fact of our own existence is entirely inexplicable. As it has been said, “out of nothing, nothing comes”.

It also strikes me that whatever has always existed is likely to continue to exist eternally. Philosophically, this is known as necessity; It is impossible for a necessary object not to exist. It must exist in any possible world. The opposite of necessity is contingency, which describes something that might or might not exist. Similarly, the opposite of eternality is temporality… things bound to time.

Necessary objects must also possess necessary essential attributes. These attributes are those that make the object what it is, and cause it to be necessary. These attributes are immutable, that is, they cannot change.(1)

Continue reading

So what’s this all about??

After being a regular commenter (as Terry L.) on Frank Turek’s great site for some time now, I’ve often thought about starting my own blog. After all, I’ve had somewhat of a reputation on that site for trying to rewrite War and Peace in a comment. Several times. On the same thread.

It finally dawned on me that by slightly altering what I write on that site,  I could be populating my own blog instead of increasing the load-time of Frank’s pages by orders of magnitude! Continue reading

Lessons from McDonaldland

Originally posted on Facebook, May 12 2009.

Today, I took my four-year-old daughter to McDonalds for lunch. After she quickly wolfed her food down, she went to play on the playground while I finished eating. Soon she was all giggles as she ran up the stairs and came sliding back down over and over.Leah

Then I heard her voice calling me. “Watch me, daddy!”, she yelled with glee as she climbed back to the top of the tower. Continue reading

The Watcher

Almost nineteen years ago, I spent one precious, sleepless night holding our firstborn baby girl all night long, thanking God for the blessing He had given to me and my wife. That night changed me forever! It’s funny how something… someone so small can instantly become such a big part of one’s life! I refused to let her go, even for a second, for as long as I could stay awake. And as she slept peacefully in my arms, I watched her. Continue reading

Rebuke me, please!

Some few years ago, I started noticing a trend among secular pundits. Now, unfortunately, it seems to have invaded Christian thought as well. This trend is, on its surface, a Christian tenet; however, when you dig deep and look at the motivation, it’s only a thinly-veiled attempt to justify following one’s own will rather than God’s will.

I’m speaking about the trend to take Matthew 7:1 out of context. This verse is likely now the most favorite verse, replacing the beloved John 3:16. Because rather than John’s words about God’s love for us, people now love Matthew’s directive to “Judge not”!

If we take this verse to mean that we should not judge others, we fall into gross error, for that is not the meaning of this verse at all. Were this the case, it would directly contradict other scriptures that speak of the value of being rightfully judged when we are in error. Continue reading

A Review of “Some Thoughts on Naturalism and Morality” by Jason Thibodeau

At the request of an acquaintance on another site, I’ve just finished reading this article,  and I must admit that it’s one of the better attempts to justify morality on naturalism. However, he has a couple of holes in his argument that I’d like to address briefly. This post will assume some prior knowledge that many who interact with me on will have. To the rest of you, I apologize!

Thibodeau’s article can be found here.

Please remember that Thibodeau is a trained philosopher. I don’t even play one on TV. I’m just a simple guy with a slightly-above-average intelligence (so I’m told) that is trying to reason through this stuff. Yet, it seems to me that good philosophy should have great explanatory power and correspond to what we perceive reality to be. I don’t see this in his article.

First of all, is this claim:

4. Killing babies is horrendous.
5. Even if God does not exist, killing babies is horrendous.
6. So, even if God does not exist, objective moral values do exist.

This, to my mind, is so compelling as to be decisive. I do not see what the existence of God adds to the universe such that, if he did not exist, the killing of an innocent child would not be horrendous.

I’m very glad he finds killing babies to be horrendous. (I wonder if he approves of abortion…) However, he makes this statement simply as an assertion without any evidence to say why it is horrendous. Continue reading