Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways

As I continue to examine additional arguments for God’s existence, I have finally come to Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. The first episode on the First Way went live today.

The First Way is Aquinas’ argument from motion. Aquinas argued that only God can explain why things change. Change can only be explained by a First, Unmoved Mover; i.e. a Being who is the ultimate source of all change, but is itself not changed by anything.

Check out this episode (and the ones to follow) wherever you get your podcasts, or from https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com

 

No such thing as an “agnostic atheist”

It’s been common in the last couple of decades for atheists to attempt to redefine atheism as a “lack of belief in God” as opposed to “a belief that God does not exist.” I’ve examined the errors of this endeavor before (here, here, and here).

From time-to-time, you’ll also see atheists getting even more creative with their labels. One that has interested me is the label “agnostic atheist.” This so-called position takes the redefinition of atheism as its starting point, and then adds to it the uncertainty that is implied by “agnostic.” An agnostic atheist, then, is someone who lacks a belief in God but does not know for sure whether God exists or not.*

 

Summary Arguments for God’s Existence #4 – Contingency Argument

Here is my most concise summary of the contingency argument for God’s existence: Things that don’t have to exist, but do, can only be explained by something that does have to exist.

Here is a version that is more fleshed out:

Things that did not have to exist, but do exist (contingent beings), require an explanation for why they exist, and that explanation must be found in some external cause. If everything that exists had an external cause, however, then there would have to be an infinite number of beings and an infinite regress of causes, and ultimately there would be no explanation for why anything that exists, exists. To explain why things that did not have to exist do exist, there must be at least one being that must exist and cannot not exist. This necessary being has being in Himself, and gives being to all other contingent beings.

 

More arguments for God’s existence

I’ve been discussing the evidence for God’s existence on the podcast for something like seven months. I’ve gone in-depth on a number of important arguments for God’s existence. I just finished up the teleological argument and planned to shift my focus to addressing objections to theism or starting a new series on the resurrection. However, there are still a number of important arguments I want to share, so I’ve decided to continue on with the evidence for God’s existence with a good number of additional arguments including Aquinas’ Five Ways, the ontological argument, the argument from consciousness, the origin of life, free will, human value, etc. I will explore these arguments at a higher level.

 

Summary Arguments for God’s Existence #3 – Kalam Cosmological Argument

Here is a very concise version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Things that begin to exist require an external cause. The universe began to exist, so it requires an external cause. As the cause of all physical reality, the first cause cannot itself be part of physical reality, but must be immaterial, non-spatial, eternal, powerful, and personal, which is a basic description of the theistic God.

Here is another way of presenting the gist of the argument without the technical-sounding language:

 

Resurrection 1-N-Done

The resurrection of Jesus is the centerpiece of Christian theology. I just posted a 1-N-Done episode on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Check it out this Easter at https://www.buzzsprout.com/1958918/14768655.

He is risen!

See also:

• The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus: A Short Case
• Why the resurrection matters
• A Resurrected Christ: The Most Unlikely of All Conclusions

 

Summary Arguments for God’s Existence #2 – Personal Experience

Here is a summary of the argument from personal experience:

I have experienced God. I have no reason to doubt that my experience was veridical. And given the religious, social, and temporal context of this experience, it is most reasonably interpreted as an experience of the divine. Since I could not experience God if God does not exist, God must exist.

 

Summary Arguments for God’s Existence: #1 – The Impossibility of Nothingness

Now that I have concluded my podcast discussion of six major arguments for God’s existence, I’m going to post short summations of each argument. Today’s summation is for the argument from the impossibility of nothingness:

If there was ever a time when nothing existed, there would still be nothing because nothing has no potential to become something. Something exists, however, so we know that something must have always existed. The universe is not that something since it originated at the Big Bang, so the eternal “something” must transcend the universe. The eternal something must be immaterial, spaceless, personal, and eternal, which is the basic description of a theistic God.

Here is another, more conversational way of putting it:

 

Theistic Arguments #6: A Teleological Argument for God’s Existence

The sixth argument I offer for God’s existence in my “Does God Exist?” podcast series is the teleological argument, or argument from design. Teleological arguments affirm that there is evidence of design in the universe, and this design is best explained by theism.

I just posted my first episode in the mini-series, which is a 1-N-Done episode summarizing a form of the teleological argument based on the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and physical constants of our universe. You can listen to it wherever you get podcasts, or from https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com.

You can also read a paper I have written on the topic, available at the link below:

Fine-Tuned for Life: A Teleological Argument for God’s Existence

The paper is 29 pages long, so if that’s more than you have time to read, I’ve also written a couple of shorter versions of the paper that will be easier to digest.

Fine-Tuned for Life: A Teleological Argument for God’s Existence – A Short Case (7 pages)

Fine-Tuned for Life: A Teleological Argument for God’s Existence – A Very Short Case (4 pages)

Also, check out Dr. William Lane Craig’s video on the teleological argument:

 

My papers on the arguments for God’s existence

I just published my last podcast episode in my mini-series on the moral argument for God’s existence (you can listen to the series at https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com, or wherever you get podcasts). That means I have updated the original post to include my paper on the topic. Give it a read. I have different papers of varying lengths for those who don’t have a lot of time to read.

And in case you missed it, I also posted my papers for the Kalam and contingency arguments a while back too.

Next week I’ll begin a new mini-series on the fine-tuning argument. Stay tuned!

 

Michael Ruse’s Evolutionary Account of Morality

Currently, I am in the midst of my podcast series on the moral argument for God’s existence. This reminded me of an article that the famed atheist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, wrote in The Guardian back in 2010 as a response to the question, What can Darwin teach us about morality? Ruse’s multifaceted answer is intriguing, and at times, incoherent, but also quite enlightening about where atheistic and evolutionary thought leads.

Ruse admits that without God “there are no grounds whatsoever for being good.” Morality, he says, is just a matter of emotion and personal taste on the same level as “liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers.” But he’s quick to point out that just because there are no grounds for being good, it doesn’t mean we should be bad. While this is true insofar as it goes, it fails to answer the more important question: Why – in the absence of a moral law giver, and thus in the absence of any objective moral law – should anyone behave in ways traditionally thought to be “good” if and when it is in their own self-interest to do otherwise? In the name of what should they deny their own impulses? In the name of the Grand Sez Who?

 

A Concise Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage

Politically speaking, the same-sex marriage debate is over – at least for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a Constitutional right. Even Republican lawmakers have caved on the issue when they passed The Respect for Marriage Act in December 2022 (39 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 12 Republicans in the Senate voted for it). Even on the social front, the debate seems to be over. Not only do 63% of Americans currently approve of same-sex marriage[1], but conservatives have disengaged from any public debate on the matter. We have conceded defeat with our silence. So why keep talking about the issue, then? While the debate is essentially over in the political and social arenas, it is still raging on in the church. While conservatives may still have the numbers on our side for the time being, the pro-LGBT and pro-same-sex marriage crowd has gained a momentum that may undermine our majority in the near future. Christians still need to know why same-sex marriage is morally incompatible with Christianity (theological), and still need to understand why we think that same-sex marriage should not be legal (political). This post will focus on the political issue (for a Biblical case against homosex, see my article “Homosexuality and the Bible”).

Many Christians take the “personally opposed, but…” approach to same-sex marriage. They say they personally believe that same-sex marriage is immoral, but they think it would be wrong to “impose” their religious beliefs on others in a secular society. But is it an imposition of our religious beliefs if we don’t expand the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples? Not at all. The argument against calling same-sex relationships a “marriage” does not require any religious presuppositions, yet alone Christian presuppositions. So what does a Christian argument against expanding the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples look like? Here’s one such argument:

 

Pope Francis approves the blessing of same-sex unions

The pope has officially jumped the shark. While a number of mainline Protestant denominations and prominent Evangelical pastors have changed their position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage in recent years, I never expected that the Catholic Church would do so. On Monday, the pope issued a declaration (Fiducia Supplicans) allowing priests to bless same-sex couples. To be fair, the Catholic Church is still officially saying homosexual behavior is sinful and still rejects same-sex marriage as genuine marriage, but blessing same-sex couples is at least tantamount to a moral approval of homosexual behavior.

 

Theistic Arguments #5: The Moral Argument for God’s Existence

The fifth argument I offer for God’s existence in my “Does God Exist?” podcast series is the moral argument. Moral arguments argue from the reality of morality to the existence of God. If morality is real > God is real.

I just published the first of nine episodes, which is a 1-N-Done episode. In the series, I explain why God is the only adequate explanation for our moral experience, and then address the most common objections against the moral argument.

 

Hypocrisy is not moral failure, but moral pretending

Most people would define a hypocrite as someone who does something that they claim is wrong. That can’t be the right definition, however, because it would consign everyone to being a hypocrite. Everyone sins, which means everyone who believes in morality acts in ways that is contrary to morality. That would make everyone a hypocrite. If your definition of hypocrite turns every person into a hypocrite, then your definition is not a meaningful definition. Something is wrong with the definition. A hypocrite is not someone who fails to live up to their moral ideals, but someone who falsely professes to believe in such ideals in the first place. A hypocrite is an actor.

 

See also:

The True Meaning of Hypocrite

“I’m not a Christian because there are too many hypocrites in the church”

 

Transgenderism: The Problem is with the Mind, not the Body

Trans people are 4-6 times as likely as normal people to experience a mental health condition.[1] A 2019 study found that 58% of trans people have at least one mental health issue, so why do we take them seriously when they claim they are a different gender?[2]

Remember, transgenderism is a mismatch between the mind and the body. Trans advocates claim that when the two conflict, the mind is right and the body is wrong. But why should we trust the minds of people that are known to have problems with their mind? The fact that so many transgender people have mental health issues is the best reason to conclude that the problem is with their mind, not their body. Thinking that we should trust the judgment of mentally unhealthy people regarding their gender is like thinking we should trust the judgment of those on psychedelic drugs. Neither is capable of accurately assessing reality. Trans people need mental help, not affirmation of their mental delusion.

 

Theistic Arguments #4: The Contingency Argument for God’s Existence

The fourth argument I offer for God’s existence in my “Does God Exist?” podcast series is the Contingency Argument.

The contingency argument for God’s existence is a cosmological argument, but unlike the kalam argument, it does not require a temporally finite universe. The contingency argument holds that even an eternal universe requires a cause, and that cause is God.

 

When hate is morally virtuous

“Hate” is considered a bad word these days. The culture tells us that we should not hate. We have even criminalized hate in the form of “hate crimes.” Many people are under the impression that this attitude toward hate is rooted in Judeo-Christian theology – that the Bible is opposed to all hate. This is not true. While the Bible does condemn certain expressions of hate (e.g. Lev 19:17), it actually teaches us to hate. It’s a matter of who or what we should hate.

 

Not God’s best

It’s become popular to describe sin as “not God’s best for you.” I understand why some people prefer this language. It is not as confrontational or judgmental as saying “X is a sin,” and may make it easier for the sinner to acknowledge his moral wrongdoing. This language, however, may be interpreted as minimizing the severity of sin as well as diminishing the need for repentance. After all, nobody always does what is best for them. We often settle for less-than-best and are fine with it.

 

Theistic Arguments #3: The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence

The third argument I offer for God’s existence in my “Does God Exist?” podcast series is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is my favorite argument for God’s existence.

The argument reasons to God based on the temporal finitude of the universe. The essence of the argument is that temporally finite things require a cause for their existence. Since the universe began to exist in the finite past, it also requires a cause. An examination of the properties required of such a cause match the properties of the theistic God.