Your browser (Internet Explorer 6) is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser.
X
Post

Atheist Assumption

Post

Turn From God & Turn to What?


As I watched this video I wondered to myself does this young lady not know that God is not the one in need of a spiritual chance? Does she not know that she is not the judge or the prosecutor but rather sitting in the dock found wanton and in tremendous need of grace and mercy before the Judge of all things? It is no wonder she is an unbeliever, a false convert, a stony ground hearer as she attempted to play god with human autonomy in hand (law unto self). As though God could be put in a tube and tested (Matt. 4:7 Deut. 6:16) like an experiment! The only proper starting point for knowledge is not one of autonomy but reverence and fear of the LORD (Prov. 1:7). Scripture instructs, God’s Holy Word declares that any other starting point is the position of fools: who despise wisdom and instruction (Prov. 14:1; 1:7).  She likened her foolishness to a snowball effect and Scripture exposes that the unbeliever’s knowledge so-called is futile and indeed like a snowball as professed wisdom descends down the slope of reason where thoughts and foolish hearts become darkened (1 Tim. 6:20; Rom. 1:21)!  

Turn from God and turn to what?  When the unbeliever suppresses the truths -which God has made known to them- they have nowhere to turn, no foundation to rest their heads upon other than that which has already been laid by God (Rom. 1:18-20).  In their suppression of the truth they display behaviors that betray their professed godless worldview as they utter moral judgments, laws of logic and rely on the scientific backbone of uniformity; that is to say they expect the laws of science to operate tomorrow like they do today yet have no accountability as to why they would when they attempt to oust the controlling influence (God) out of the paradigm (cf. Gen. 8:22). 

There is no foundation for knowledge outside of God. I have written on this somewhat HERE. For those of you that would suppress the truth in denial I invite you to challenge your suppression interactively HERE where my good friend Sye Tenbruggencate has taken the time to give a fuller account that takes into consideration the scope of possible objections.

Well, it is that time of the morning where I must go get ready for the show…In the meantime I leave you with a quote by C.S. Lewis:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., Materialism and Astronomy – are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

If this universe is the product of chance and the human mind is ultimately a by-product of that chance process then all reasoning and argumentation reduces down to being nothing more than arbitrary! 

Post

By What Authority?

 

In the previous clip the young Mormon missionary said a handful of startling remarks, one of which I would like to expand on a bit -time permitting- as I am typing out some thoughts just 15 minutes before our show “On The box” starts. So let me give you folks a peek into not just what I would say but why also!

Mormon Missionary: “He doesn’t have the authority to stand up there and call people to repentance.”

Upon hearing this it would be very tempting for me or any other street evangelist to fire back a sort of positive assertion such as this:
 
Street Apologist: “We don’t say these things on our own authority but rather on the Authority of God’s Word!”

Now, there is nothing false about the previous response as it is true that we don’t preach repentance and faith on our own authority but rather on the Authority of Scripture (Lk. 24:47; Heb. 4:12). Sometimes, I just might respond that exact way! However, through some experience I have learned that firing off a positive assertion right out of the gate puts us in a sort of defensive mode where we are set up to either be (1)ignored or (2)interrogated further on the heals of the conversation.

(1)Ignored. When someone says “He doesn’t have the authority to stand up there and call people to repentance.” We pretty well know what is being implied or presumed. It is implied that we are doing things on an authority that is other than God’s Authority. This is a false misrepresentation, it is what the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing as they said He cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24) and it can be quite tempting to put up a quick defense by jumping the gun on them. However, this can cause our jumpy reply to be heard, absorbed, outwardly ignored, and followed up by a totally new contention. What do I mean by that? 

Well, suppose you were to respond as follows: “We don’t say these things on our own authority but rather on the authority of God’s Word!” The Mormon may hear your reply and realize he made a mistake…A false assumption. Will he just lay down now and admit his fault? In my experience no! So what the Mormon or any other detractor faced with a similar scenario might do, is internally realize this is an unsavory hill to fight on, internally change his game plan and pick a totally different contention to probe on. This mental processing all takes place in a matter of just a couple seconds, and next thing you know you are in a situation where you are constantly on your heals deflecting false accusation after false accusation. 

(2)Interrogated. Here is another way jumping the gun on the detractor’s implications can put you on your heals.   You make your positive assertion “We don’t say these things on our own authority but rather on the Authority of God’s Word!” Remember this is a true statement…But the detractor has you set up for interrogation on this matter once you have made that positive assertion. It is almost like a bait and switch as you have been baited in with a false accusation, you give a defense and then your defense is ambushed with interrogation! 

An example of this would be a relentless volley of questions shot gun blasted your way, one after the other: “Prove it!” “Show me!” “Quick name the verse!” “That’s just your interpretation…What makes your interpretation the correct one?” ect. 

There are great responses to all of these pitiful challenges and perhaps you are sharp enough to have them all down but, you see this turns into a battle of attrition where the detractor has nothing on the line, comfortably throwing objections your way while you are the only one with a dog in this fight. You are constantly deflecting and defending yourself on the heals of the dialogue.

So what do we do? This is where I don’t tell you what to think and say but rather how to think about such an encounter. Instead of assuming what the detractor is presuming and then calling it out. We need to make them “out” themselves by challenging not what they assume but rather that they assume things about us. This will put detractors immediately on the heals of their own assumptions where the one who is doing the assuming should rightly be:

Mormon Missionary: “He doesn’t have the authority to stand up there and call people to repentance.”

Street Apologist: “Do people need to repent?”

Mormon Missionary: “Yes, of course!”

Street Apologist: Do you let people know?”

Mormon Missionary: “Yes…But wait…I don’t say it on my own authority!”

Street Apologist: “By what authority do you say it?”

Mormon Missionary: It’s in the Bible homeboy!”

Street Apologist: “Ah, yes…Where in the Bible?”

Mormon Missionary: “I don’t know…Google it!”

Street Apologist: “Hmm…Let me help you, it says “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Lk.24:47). “Is this not what we are doing? Have you not wrongfully assumed we do it on our own authority?”

ect. 
_________________________


You see in the previous scenario the Street Apologist is confident and comfortable where he started. It is the detractor that makes false accusations and if the Street Apologist can aim at those false assumptions by questioning them, the Street Apologist will be in control of the conversation and able to steer the detractor to see their misguided thinking and ultimately bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.(2 Cor. 10:5)

After all…Questioning detractors assumptions is the aim that Jesus took often!(Mk. 11:27-31; Matt. 12:24-30).


Posted By: Chad Williams “StreetApologetics”

Post

How Do You KNOW The Bible is the Word of God?

For the believer, ask yourself how do I know that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it because of a great pool of manuscript evidence? Is it because it is a historically accurate document? Is it because of fulfilled prophecy? How do I know that the Bible is the Word of God?

The answer is the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:15-16). That is how I know that the Bible is the Word of God. That is the ultimate proof which is unmistakable and veridical confirmation for the believer. It does not stand or fall based upon evidences that are to be put under a microscope.


“Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer’s faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith. For the believer, God is not the conclusion of a syllogism; He is the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwelling within us. How then does the believer know that Christianity is true? He knows because of the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit who lives within him.”


Dr. William Lane Craig


Enjoying the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit as our proper basis of faith, the believer also enjoys the confirmation of that faith made manifest through certain evidences such as fulfilled prophecy! This is where we should differentiate between what the believer knows and what the believer can show.

As we have covered the believer knows the Bible is the Word of God because of the inner testimony of the God’s Holy Spirit. With that said, can the believer take this veridical and vertical relationship He has and mobilize it to descend down on an unbeliever? Not in our own power…certainly not. Conversion is a vertical work of the Holy Spirit. The relationship that the believer has to the unbeliever is a horizontal one in which we can call upon and show divine truths such as fulfilled prophecy, in hopes that the Holy Spirit would be pleased and apt to move upon in such a way that He convicts the unbeliever into a knowing relationship that all believers enjoy and apprehend. “Certain truths of Christianity such as ‘God forgives my sins,‘ ‘Christ has reconciled me to God,‘ and so on…(Craig).”


Remember this is showing God’s Word and not proving God’s existence as God’s existence does not need to be proven because every man already knows that God exists:


“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:18-20).”


Therefore “Let God be true but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:3).


Another and perhaps stronger argument to be made for God’s Word is what is known as the “impossibility of the contrary”. That is to say, if you deny that the Bible is the Word of God you have denied the very foundations and preconditions to have any intelligibility. Furthermore, in doing so, you have lost all accountably for trusting your senses, your reason, and uniformity to nature. Much more needs to be said on this and for now I refer you to whom I consider to be the modern day subject expert of Presuppositional Apologetics. In my eyes he carries the torch that Van Til and Bahnsen once ran with. His name is Sye Tenbruggencate.


Here is a must listen to radio debate that Sye participated in with atheist Paul Baird.


And, here is Sye’s website: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Post

Worldviews & Systems of Thought

Worldviews & Systems of Thought


Every worldview provides for the individual an epistemology. That is to say, a reason why they believe what they believe. As we peel back the layers of an epistemology we will ultimately arrive at circles in reasoning, otherwise known as “circular-reasoning.”


This would be a good place to point out that there are two forms of circular reasoning. That is to say one form is “vicious” and the other form is “self-authenticating.”


A viciously circular argument will never give an ultimate justification to ones system of thought. For instance, a “Naturalist” will never have full accountability and justification for immaterial, invariant & universally absolute Laws of Logic. Their system of thought simply does not provide for such characteristics, in fact much more it doesn’t allow for it in the pool of options.


A self-authenticating circle lands itself upon a sort of end of the line or “Ultimate Authority.” This is to say an authority that provides support and justification for the entire system of thought. By definition the “Ultimate Authority” needs no outside explanation of itself, otherwise we would no be talking about what is ultimate! Asking what gives authority sans the ultimately authority would turn to be a meaningless question that commits a type of category mistake like asking what is the name of the married bachelors wife?


All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”


-John 1:3


Eternal God is the Ultimate Authority.


Post

Moses and Murder?

Before responding to this question I think that some important preliminary points ought to be made about questions involving events in the Bible.

When one adopts or assumes the text of Exodus to make his or her question they have stepped into Biblical territory to do so and therefore they must remain consistent in this by lending themselves to the surrounding text.

That is to say, in order to make their question a valid one, they have assumed -at least for the moment- that the event they refer to had really taken place! But you see, if their challenge is to remain a consistent one, they cannot simply oust the corpus material. To do so would be to commit two informal fallacies which ought to be swiftly pointed out:

Taxi-cab Fallacy- A premise cannot be dismissed like a hack once you have arrived at your desired destination.

Straw-man Fallacy- Argument based upon a misrepresentation of an opponents position.

You cannot jump into the vehicle of the Christian worldview and then arbitrarily attempt to get off where it suits your personal fancy. To do so would be a tremendous error as it is a misrepresentation of the Christian worldview which ultimately posits a bankrupt challenge to the Christian.

So with the preliminary grounds laid, it is acknowledged that within the text of the Bible the question has been raised and thus within the text of the Bible will one receive the appropriate answer as given by Tony Miano.

Post

Atheist Logic


Origin of logic
The Laws of logic that we discover are reflections of God’s nature and the way He thinks, and therefore the standard and measure of correct thinking. The natural question here would be “how do we know how God thinks?” Well for the Christian we maintain that we know how God thinks based upon what He has revealed through His Word. God’s Word is our Ultimate Authority which is confirmed through the witness of God’s self-authenticating Holy Spirit (Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5; Jn. 14:16-26) . So we are talking about a worldview here and not evidences. A person’s worldview will ultimately dictate how that person will interpret evidence and this is true for all other systems of thought. The Christian’s worldview stands upon the foundation of Scripture and thus accounts for how we know what we know. 
 
Take for instance the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). You cannot have two contradictory claims both be true at the same time and in the same sense. You cannot have a 5 dollar bill in your wallet and not in your wallet at the same time and in the same sense! Why is that? Because it is a contradiction which does not properly reflect God’s nature and His way of thinking. God cannot contradict or deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13). God’s very nature does not change (Mal. 3:6). All true systems of thought are God’s; His paradigm and truth will not contradict itself (Col. 2:3).


Nature of logic
God is Spirit (Jn. 4:24). He is not made up of matter. He does not occupy a location in space, which the Astrophysicist Jason Lisle affirms. Interestingly, logic does not occupy space either. Logic is not made up of matter. You cannot accidently swallow a law of logic, pull 5 gallons of it out of your refrigerator, and so on. The Christian worldview is the only worldview that properly grounds absolute laws of logic. The Christian has both accountability and justification for such immaterial laws of Logic via God as He is immaterial (Jn. 4:24).

This serves to be quite troubling however for the atheistic naturalist, for they believe that nature is all there is…Nothing beyond the spacial universe, yet in the other hand they want to champion logic. Unfortunately they can’t have their cake and eat it too on this one. So how do they account for these non-material laws which govern true thought? They dont! Instead they have to assume the laws of logic, they have to assume the Christian worldview in order to get along the way! But they certainly don’t want to admit that with their mouths. They will deny, deny, deny but, never justify. It has been said they are like the skeptic of “air” that says that air does not exist… All the while gasping air into their mouths so utter the claim. And so the atheists are at it, they deny God exists all the while they have to stand on God’s ground to do so.

More to be said in future posts about the unchanging and universal nature of God and logic… 




Post

Rapist Goes 2 Heaven?

Hey Chad! I really hope you or someone responds to this, even if you direct me to a website that answers this question, that is fine too.

Can a serial murderer or someone who has raped and tortured children, enter heaven and be forgiven by God? If the answer is yes, then how would you justify this or be able to explain the reasoning behind it to a non believer. Seems like a real emotional problem but also a difficult intellectual one as well.

I have not heard of any good answers to this question, or any answers that would be satisfying to a non believer.

This question phrased in another way would be “So are you telling me that an atheist who lives a decent moral life trying to love others will not go to heaven, but the rapist or murderer can? What kind of a God would allow that!?”
___________________________

I anticipate the most fruitful avenue to take in pursuing such an objection is to firstly defang the first variation you gave point by point in-house; and then secondly see about applying our new found weapons of warfare (2 Cor. 10:4) to the second variation you gave which commonly emerges in enemy occupied territory as C.S. Lewis would have it.

Can a serial murderer or someone who has raped and tortured children, enter heaven and be forgiven by God?

Emphatically I say yes! Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mk. 3:28,29). Thus, there is only one unforgivable sin which is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (Mk. 3:28-30; Matt. 12:31,32). What encompasses blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a subject matter deserving of it’s own article. So lets keep germane to the initial question at hand with a swift and bankable explanation of what it is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit as follows:

“Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit’s convicting influence and does not repent will not be forgiven, ‘neither in this world, neither in the world to come’ (Matt. 12:32).”

-Ray Comfort

How would you justify this or be able to explain the reasoning behind it to a non believer?

For the justification and reasoning behind our explanation one needs to look no other place than Scripture which is our standard by which we measure and filter all things (2 Tim. 3:16). It is real easy for us here because when someone raises a question about God and heaven it could be asked of them where they came up with such an idea that murderers and the like could possibly be forgiven by God and go heaven? They will have to call upon the Bible if they wish to properly represent their question to the Christian. Therefore, by calling upon the Bible to raise their objection they must be consistent and subject themselves to the corpus material they have called upon! With no apologies our answer starts with those three words The bible says:

God has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31). All have fallen short of God’s Holy righteous standard which demands perfection (Rom. 3:23; Matt. 5:48). By God’s Law of perfection every mouth will be stopped; no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:19,20). The cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). But God is rich in mercy (Eph. 2:4) showing no partiality (Rom. 2:11) and promises to save whoever calls upon the name of the LORD (Rom. 10:9-13).

Behind enemy lines and under fire:

Objector: “So are you telling me that an atheist who lives a decent moral life trying to love others will not go to heaven, but the rapist or murderer can? What kind of a God would allow that!?”

Christian: “Can you please tell me where you have come up with this idea that murderers and the like could be forgiven by God and go heaven?

Objector: “Uh….The bible!”

Christian: “by calling upon the Bible to raise your objection you have subjected yourself to an answer that comes from the Bible you have called upon.”

Objector: “Huh? Wait…No I have not!”

Christian: “Are you not asking a question about the God of the bible?

Objector: “Uh…Let me rephrase it…The god of all religions!”

Christian: “Oh, well I do not align myself with what you just said.”

[Awkward silence]

Objector: “Ok! Yes, God of the Bible!”

Christian: “Thank you! That is a great question and as you have called upon the Bible to raise your question… Out of the Bible will come the answer. May I please have about a minute or so of uninterrupted time to answer this very important question?”

Objector: “Sure.”

Christian: God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness. The trouble is that everyone falls short of God’s Holy righteous standard which demands perfection! God’s standard of perfection reveals our sin and stops every mouth as it shows us that there is no decent moral life that measures up! The cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. You see that even a liar is on the same side of hell as a murderer if they die in such a sinful condition! But God is rich in mercy! Showing no partiality He promises to save whoever calls upon the name of the LORD!

Let me ask you…Have you ever told a lie?

side note: At this point we want to get personal with the person and being compelled by love for that person we need to point out their personal sin so that they can see their personal need for a Savior just like Jesus did! (Mk. 10:17-22).

Was this helpful? If so, please share it by using the icons below.

Post

Presuppositional Tension

Naturalists can not account or justify for logic which is the prerequisite and very principles of reasoning! They sure like to lay claim to logic but they can’t account for it. Why? Because logic is immaterial, unchanging and universally absolute yet the naturalist believes we are the accidental by-product of material, and change in a universe denied absolutes.

In the Christian Worldview there is accountability and justification for immaterial, unchanging and universally absolute laws of logic as:

God is immaterial Jn. 4:24

God is unchanging Mal. 3:6 and,

God is universally present or otherwise known as omnipresent Ps.139:7-10.

The naturalist conducts experiments which assume the laws of nature will operate tomorrow like they do today. Yet the naturalism can give no positive reason as to why the laws of nature will operate tomorrow like they do today. After all why would the laws of nature change in a universe that is the product of change. Thus we have another unjustified assumption that gives no accountability to the ground they would like to claim.

In the Christian Worldview there is accountability and justification for the Uniformity of Nature which makes all science possible as God is the controlling influence through whom all things are made Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16 and held together by his command Gen. 8:22.

The naturalist has to stand on ground that only the Christian worldview can account for. They steal like a kleptomaniac and bite the very hand that feeds them! As Van Til would say “They sit on the knee of God to attempt to slap him in the cheek.” In the process of doing so, they deny God and their wisdom reduces to nothingness 1 Cor. 2:6.

Was this helpful? If so, please share it by using the icons below.

Post

Evolutionary Theory and Cosmology Inextricably Related?

The theory of evolution and the origin of the universe are inextricably connected. After all, the platform or bare necessities needed are: Time, Space and Matter in order to get the blind evolutionary machine a foot hold to start rolling down the varying routes of either “Punctuated Equilibrium” or Gradualism” as it were. Ultimately those necessary conditions require a sufficient causal explanation.

I don’t see anything wrong with pursing and engaging on what theoretically provides for the under-pinnings and necessary conditions of the very platform that plays backbone to “evolution.” Before our mouths start salivating over some theoretical meat to sink our teeth into lets first discuss who is going to provide the goods…Who is bringing home the bacon!? Rather than starting with a forward leap into the territory of unjustified presuppositions which isolates the paradigm to a pool of options that go no further than the natural world; lets dig a little deeper and see how far the rabbit hole goes!

Darwinian Biologists seem to have no issue with taking the lab coat off and playing philosopher or cosmologists and then throwing the lab coat back on and I can see why…Their inductions fully rely on such necessary preconditions. Unfortunately for them isolating their explanations to the naturalistic paradigm is literally impossible to succeed in, and doing so turns professed wisdom into foolishness. Rom. 1:22

The Darwinian naturalist has a number of unjustified presuppositions which are blind and faith based in stubbornness Rom. 2:15. They rather drink iniquity in like water Job 15:16 and play the part of a fool than acknowledge God. Ps. 14:1

Examples:

Naturalists can not account or justify for logic which is the prerequisite and very principles of reasoning! They sure like to lay claim to logic but they can’t account for it. Why? Because logic is immaterial, unchanging and universally absolute yet the naturalist believes we are the accidental byproduct of material, and change in a universe denied absolutes.

In the Christian Worldview there is accountability and justification for immaterial, unchanging and universally absolute laws of logic as:

God is immaterial Jn. 4:24

God is unchanging Mal. 3:6 and,

God is universally present or otherwise known as omnipresent Ps.139:7-10.

The naturalist conducts experiments which assume the laws of nature will operate tomorrow like they do today. Yet the naturalism can give no positive reason as to why the laws of nature will operate tomorrow like they do today. After all why would the laws of nature change in a universe that is the product of change. Thus we have another unjustified assumption that gives no accountability to the ground they would like to claim.

In the Christian Worldview there is accountability and justification for the Uniformity of Nature which makes all science possible as God is the controlling influence through whom all things are made Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16 and held together by his command Gen. 8:22.

The naturalist has to stand on ground that only the Christian worldview can account for. They steal like a kleptomaniac and bite the very hand that feeds them! As Van Til would say “They sit on the knee of God to attempt to slap him in the cheek.” In the process of doing so, they deny God and their wisdom reduces to nothingness 1 Cor. 2:6.

Through the lens of willful ignorance they believe in a carnival like fairytale with the usual carnies operating the machines such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. They love to pull on the levers to their make believe “Greatest Show on Earth.”

It is quite a show indeed as you reduce it to its logical absurdity. The fairytale has unfounded, altering and conflicting views and story tellers fight over “punctuated equilibrium” vs. “gradualism” relying on a naturalist’s miracle -for lack of a better word- known as abiogenesis (Life emerging out of non-life) which relies upon an unknown primeval soup concoction, which relies upon particular conditions of the earth, which relies upon specific conditions of the universe, which relies on/and requires a sufficient causal explanation. TALK ABOUT FAITH!

I am glad that God’s Word is able to lay it all out in one simple verse Gen. 1:1 which I know to be truth thru the Spirit of Truth! Jn. 16:13; 14:17; 8:32

When one affirms evolution they deny the ability to know anything for certain as it the mooring line that anchors and drifts a sea leaving them strangers to the land of reason and separated from the only true God and Creator of the universe Deut. 6:4.

Why give the Darwinian evolutionist so much ground by entertaining talk with them about finches, monkeys and moths when the fairytale they believe in champions the scientific impossibility of “something coming from nothing” as it’s foundational platform to stand on! I sure like the way Dr. Bill Craig puts it:

“I submit to you that it is worse than magic. I mean, at least in magic, when the magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, you’ve got the hat! And you’ve got the magician! But on atheism, the universe just pops into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing. I think that takes more faith to believe than theism.”