Philosophy

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Christians maintain that God is all-good, all-loving, and the ultimate standard of morality.

In a recent blog post , Professor Keith Parsons offers three reasons for why (he thinks) the soul does not exist. (You might recall that Parsons debated William Lane Craig in 1998). Since Parsons' objections to substance dualism (for simplicity, I will hereafter refer to substance dualism simply as 'dualism') seem rather common among lay atheists, his objections are worth evaluating. Let us, then, evaluate Parsons' blog post. The Burden of Proof Before offering his three o

Summary: In the movie Calvinist the interviewees (ostensibly) argue in favor of the doctrine of total depravity and that it precludes libertarian free will (hereafter LFW). In this essay I demonstrate that the interviewees beg the question in favor of total depravity and for the idea that it is at odds with LFW. Introduction The movie Calvinist includes a section which is dedicated to articulating and defending 5-point Calvinism. This article is the first of a five part s

In my last article , I compared superhero origin stories to the beginning of the universe. Every superhero needs an origin story, and so does the universe. We need a reason why it exists. I argued the best explanation is a God who caused the universe to come into existence. But doesn’t that just push the origins problem back one step? What is God’s origin story? Why is he here? That’s the focus of this article. Whenever cosmic origins is discussed and God is offered as the e

https://youtu.be/ndfY5eX4E_I The original podcast can be found on Alisa Childer’s website by clicking here .

Question Hey Tim, A question from your fellow Nebraska Reasonable Faith chapter director! When discussing the Moral Argument with my Reasonable Faith chapter in Omaha, I received some pushback from one of our members, who just so happens to have his PhD in meta-ethics. The objection he had to the Moral Argument was to the premise, “If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.” Erik Wielenberg, an atheist philosopher from DePauw University, prop

Abstract: Dan Barker has put forth a purportedly destructive objection against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God from what he perceives as an incompatibility between an all-knowing God and the existence of free will. This essay will scrutinize the claim that God’s free-will is incompatible with his omniscience and that the so-called Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) is necessary for free will. The kind of free will assumed in this essay is Libertarian Free W

https://youtu.be/gQy21VS4A7c

https://youtu.be/KCjBdKzlP0M

Every superhero has an origin story. Spider-man was bitten by a radioactive spider. Batman’s parents were murdered before his very eyes as a child. Superman’s parents sent him on a rocket to earth where he was discovered and raised by the Kents. Origin stories tell the tale of how a superhero gained his powers or what event drove him to fight for truth and justice. However, we don't just like origin stories. We need to know how these heroes were created. Why did the Avenge

Almost every time I go for a drive these days I can count on seeing at least one bumper sticker with only one word on it -- " COEXIST ." According to Wikipedia , the bumper sticker typically spells "COEXIST" using an Islamic crescent moon for the "C," a peace sign for the "O," a combination of the male and female symbols for the "E," a Star of David for the "X," a pentagram for the dot of the "I," a yin-yang symbol for the "S," and a Christian cross for the "T." The meaning

https://youtu.be/ukrcdi9u46c The original podcast can be found on Alisa Childer's website by clicking here .

https://youtu.be/1RnA7MObN5k

I consider myself to be "Reformed!" I am NOT a Calvinist! I am a Molinist! Quite often Calvinists are quick to contend that Molinism is antithetical to the Reformed movement. I adamantly disagree and so does the evidence. In fact, there is much confusion as to exactly what the word "reformed" means. As I noted in Happy Reformation Day! , in the 16th Century to be reformed simply meant that one affirmed that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, and that something needed t

This October 31st (2017) marks the 500 year anniversary of what is known as the Protestant Reformation. As one who considers himself to be aligned with the original Reformation movement, this is a glorious anniversary and one I am excited to celebrate! In the 16th Century, to be a part of the Reformation meant that one recognized the Roman Catholic Church had some practices and/or beliefs that did not have the support of the Scriptures. Luther's "95 Theses" nailed to the Wit

Summary: In Matt Slick's "Why Write About Molinism?" he raises two major complaints. The first is that Molinism is eisegetical. I understand Slick's second complaint to be that the Molinist hermeneutic undermines sola scriptura. Here I argue that Molinists who are consistently committed to the idea that Molinism is underdetermined by Scripture cannot possibly be eisegeting Molinism into Scripture. I also argue that the Molinist hermeneutic is compatible with sola scriptura so

https://youtu.be/F2_h9WrvnpI

I once had the pleasure of interacting with Arminian theologian, Dr. Jack Cottrell. Many Arminians also claim to be Molinists. In fact, many scholars believe that Arminius was a Molinist! Cottrell, however, is an Arminian who opposes Molinism. Here is a sampling of our online debate. Hi Jack, I sincerely thank you for adding me as a FB friend. Kyle asked me to take a look at your comments on Molinism as he is contemplating these differing views. If you don’t mind, I would

https://youtu.be/3fGl-CaNamQ

Question Dear Tim Stratton (fantastic first name! ;) ), I happened across your argument against irresistible grace , and I was curious if you'd be interested in interacting with me about it. As you know, the argument looks like this: 1. If “irresistible grace” is true, then for any person x, if God desires to, has the power to, and knows how to cause x to go to heaven and not suffer eternally in hell, then x will go to heaven and not suffer eternally in hell. 2. If God is