Can somebody who doesn’t believe in God still do good things, that is, act morally? The answer to that question is “yes, of course.” But when the issue is the existence of God, asking if an atheist can be moral leads the discussion down a rabbit hole.
The question should be this: How can there be objectively true and universally applicable moral laws if there is no God? If there are such objective moral laws, then there must be a God. We know there are such laws the instant we realize it is always and everywhere wrong to, for example, torture children.
Why is this important, especially if you work on Capitol Hill and are thus part of the process by which America debates and establishes its laws? The answer to that question is in the following video from philosopher William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith:
Take a moment and ask yourself this simple question: What if there really is no God, does it really make any difference in how you live your daily life or what you think or do in any given situation?
That may strike you as one of those irrelevant questions asked by philosophers and mad men, but what if it’s not? What if, rather than being the most meaningless question, the answer determines if you and the life you are living right now makes a difference or is merely absurd?
Here’s a challenge: Give yourself five minutes to watch and think about this video in which Philosophy Professor William Lane Craig of reasonablefaith.org considers the absurdity of life without God:
Scientists are steadily adding new measures to the already lengthy list of aspects of the universe that illustrate how it is incredibly finely tuned to allow the existence of life on Earth.
Take for example the relationship of the energy of the universe to its mass. If that relationship was off by an incomprehensibly tiny one part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd, I wouldn’t be here composing this post and you wouldn’t be reading it.
The following video from Philosophy Professor William Lane Craig’s reasonablefaith.org group lays out multiple examples of how incredibly, amazingly fine-tuned our universe is.
The logical inference from the precision and multiplicity of these measures is that the universe isn’t here by chance, it must have an intelligent designer, or, that is, God:
Are You Following HillFaith Yet? Well, Why Not?
While You’re Here, Check Out These Thought-Provoking HillFaith Posts, Too
One of the most frequently heard objections to Christianity is that Jesus claimed to be the only way to Heaven, as He did at John 14:1 when He said: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me.”
But exclusive claims like that just grate on many Americans’ democratic sensibilities. Thus, the counter-claim that all of the world’s major religions make the same basic claims has great appeal.
But that appeal doesn’t change the fact of what Jesus said about Himself. In the following video, produced by philosopher William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith organization, the competing claims of the world’s religions are compared and contrasted, and in the process, the uniqueness of Jesus becomes crystal clear:
Critics and skeptics over the centuries have come up with a multitude of theories attempting to discount the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead three days after His death on the cross.
These theories fall into four primary categories:
Some sort of conspiracy.
He only appeared to have died.
Somebody moved His body without telling the disciples.
There were hallucinations.
In Part 2 of the Reasonable Faith video looking at the facts about the claim Jesus rose from the dead, each of these theories is addressed head-on and shown to be a less satisfactory explanation for the undisputed truth about the death of Jesus:
If you missed it, Part 1 was posted yesterday here on HillFaith. If you have questions about anything you heard in either video, please tell us about it in the comments.
If you and I meet in the Longworth Cafeteria and begin talking, what would happen if one of us claimed to be God Incarnate? The other would quite possibly call for those nice men in white with nets, right?
But what if the one of us claiming deity did something so miraculous that only God could do it? Would the nice men in white with nets be told to return to their offices?
In the following video (Part one of two) produced by Philosophy Professor William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith group addresses the facts about Jesus’ claim to be God. Give it a listen, then make up your own mind:
Don’t miss Part 2 here tomorrow. It will address the four major categories of theories advanced by critics and skeptics over the millenia to dispute the claim Jesus rose from the dead.
It’s a truism in much of today’s ecumenical efforts that Christians worship the same deity that Muslims do because both are monotheistic, that is, they each contend there is one god, not many.
The reality is that there are profound differences between the essential concepts of God held by orthodox Christians and the two major branches of Muslim belief.
Philosopher William Lane Craig contends the Muslim concept of god is “morally defective” and explains why in this video by first describing the Christian concept:
“As the greatest conceivable being, a morally perfect being, God must be all-loving. And this is exactly what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God loves sinners, His love is impartial, it is universal, it is unconditional,” Craig says.
“And this is a world of difference from the god of the Quaran. According to the Quaran, god does not love sinners. God in the Quaran only loves those who first love him,” Craig continues.
“So that his love rises no higher than the sort of love that Jesus said tax collectors and sinners exhibit. They love those that love them,” he said. “The Quaran says god does not love the very people that John 3:16 says that God love so much that He sent His only son to die for them.”