Read & Study the Bible Online - Bible Portal
William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig


William Lane Craig is an is an American Evangelical Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher known for his contributions to the philosophy of religion, historical Jesus studies, and the philosophy of time. He is one of the most visible contemporary proponents of natural theology, often participating in debates on the existence of God. In 1979, Craig authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is today the most published-on contemporary argument for theism in philosophy.

He is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which is the hub of the intelligent design movement,[3] and a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID).[4] He is also a member of the American Philosophical Association, the American Academy of Religion, and a member and past president of both the Philosophy of Time Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
... Show more
If you're sincerely seeking God, God will make His existence evident to you.
topics: God  
0 likes
The most popular form of atheism is a philosophy called naturalism. Naturalism is the view that science and science alone determines what exists. What exists is what our best scientific theories of the world require. If something is not required by our best scientific theories of the world, then it does not exist. But this is devastating for ethics because moral values are not required by science. Science is morally neutral. You cannot find moral values in a test tube. So it follows immediately, from the perspective of naturalism, that moral values do not really exist. They are just subjective illusions of human beings.
0 likes
Left to himself, natural man would never come to God.
0 likes
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: A SIMPLE FORMATION Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe exists. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. Logically speaking, this is
0 likes
Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer’s faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith.
0 likes
Scientists used to think that whatever the very early universe might have been like, given sufficient time and some luck, intelligent life forms would eventually evolve somewhere. As a result of discoveries over the last fifty years or so, we now know that that assumption was wrong; in fact, quite the opposite is true.
0 likes
J. Gresham Machen solemnly warned, False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the Gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.1
0 likes
system
0 likes
The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends that life has meaning.
0 likes
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: A SIMPLE FORMULATION
0 likes
(Gal. 5:22–23). When this relationship is intact, the product in our lives will be righteousness (Rom. 6:16), and the by-product of righteousness is happiness. Happiness is an elusive thing and will never be found when pursued directly; but it springs into being as one pursues the knowledge of God and as his righteousness is realized in us.
0 likes
The idea that the Big Bang theory allows us to infer that the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago has attracted the attention of many theists. This theory seemed to confirm or at least lend support to the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Indeed, the suggestion of a divine creation seemed so compelling that the notion that "God created the Big Bang" has taken a hold on popular consciousness and become a staple in the theistic component of ‘educated common sense’. By contrast, the response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively lame.
0 likes
Conclusion But given the truth of the three premises, the conclusion is logically inescapable: God is the explanation of the existence of the universe. This is no ill-defined flying spaghetti monster. The argument implies that God is an uncaused, unembodied Mind who transcends the physical universe and even space and time themselves and who exists necessarily. This conclusion is staggering. Leibniz has expanded our minds far beyond the mundane affairs of daily life. In the next chapter our minds will be stretched further still, as we try to grasp the infinite and discover the beginning of the universe.
0 likes
Conclusion Therefore it seems to me that of the three alternatives before us—physical necessity, chance, or design—the most plausible explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe is design. That gives us a transcendent, super-intelligent Designer of the cosmos who has fixed the values of nature’s laws. Incredible! So now we have a third argument contributing to a cumulative case for the existence of God.
0 likes
But apart from examining the arguments for and against God, how can the atheist justifiably make such an accusation? How does he know that God does not exist? Shouldn’t we at least look at the evidence? That is surely correct. Some philosophers have even argued that if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal, a rational person ought to choose to believe in God. That is, if the evidence is equal, it seems positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said, we have nothing to lose and infinity to gain. But my aim in this chapter is more modest than that. I only hope to have gotten you to think about these issues, to realize that the question of God’s existence has profound consequences for our lives and that therefore we cannot afford to be indifferent about it. What I’ve at least done is to clearly spell out the alternatives. If God does not exist, then life is futile. If God does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently. Therefore, it makes a huge difference whether God exists, a difference we should care about. Who cares? You should.
0 likes
Modern man is the Cosmic Orphan because he has killed God. And, by doing so, he has reduced himself to an accident of nature. When he asks, Why? his cry is lost in the silence of the recesses of space. When he dies, he dies without hope. Thus, in killing God, modern man has killed himself as well.
0 likes
Conclusion On the basis, therefore, of both philosophical and scientific evidence, we have good grounds for believing that the universe began to exist. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning, it follows that the universe has a cause of its beginning.
0 likes
Nor can science overcome the absurdity of life caused by death. Science cannot prolong life forever. It is noteworthy that Eiseley never returns to the question of death, which was awakened in him as a child, to show how science answers this problem. For it cannot. The religion of science has no answer to man’s deepest questions.
0 likes
Given AC as a rival to naturalism, there is an additional burden of proof for a naturalist ontology that quantifies over sui generis emergent properties such as those constitutive of consciousness. After
0 likes

Grupo de marcas