Who Created God?

Richard Dawkins, the famous English evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, revived an objection related to God’s existence in his book, The God Delusion. In the fourth chapter (Why There Almost Certainly Is No God), Dawkins wrote, “…the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.” In essence, Dawkins offered a restatement of the classic question, “Who created God?” On its face, this seems to be a reasonable question. Christians, after all, claim God created everything we see in our universe (all space, time and matter); He is the cause of our caused cosmos. Skeptics fail to see this as a satisfactory explanation, however, because it seems to beg the question, “If God, created the universe, who (or what) created God?”

continue reading

Why Naturalism Is False (And Why It Matters) Part 2

In this concluding lecture, Dr Ordway reviews the concepts of naturalism and theism, and provides more reasons why it is rational to believe that theism, rather than naturalism, is true. (A teaser: mystery novels point to the existence of God -- and not in the way you might expect!) She concludes by reflecting on some of the negative consequences of naturalism as a worldview. Bad consequences do not themselves disprove naturalism, but they give a compelling reason why we should ask tough questions about naturalism rather than just accepting it without question. The truth matters.


Why Naturalism Is False (And Why It Matters) Part 1

According to the naturalistic worldview, God does not exist, miracles are impossible, and the entire created world just "happened" by random chance. Many people today accept naturalism -- often unknowingly -- but in fact it is completely false. In this talk, Dr. Holly Ordway explains the difference between naturalism and theism, and shows that there is a philosophical and logical argument for theism as opposed to naturalism. This lecture (and its second part) provide a foundation of apologetic argument for the existence of God that is based on what everyone can observe in the physical world around them.


Live Debate With Sean McDowell and James Corbett

Here is Part 1 of the debate between Sean McDowell and James Corbett on the question, "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" To view Part 2, click on "continue reading."

continue reading

Advice for Atheists Who Want to Engage Theists

Atheists recognize that taking a strong position--absolutely, positively, there is no god--comes across as dogmatic and intolerant.  Although many atheists espouse the strong position, the leaders of the atheism movement prefer the weak definition--there is no credible evidence showing that God exists--not only  because the strong position appears intolerant, but also because "it does sound rather untenable."  They acknowledge that the most persistent objection to the strong position of atheism is that it sounds dogmatic and unscientific.  Advancing the strong position in public debate forces all atheists (both strong-position and weak-position) to prove the nonexistence of God, invoking the burden of proof. 

Atheists are quick to acknowledge that the strong position has disadvantages in public discussions at the popular level because it is easy to portray as dogmatic, unreasonable, and thus unscientific. To avoid public relations and marketing embarrassments, the atheism movement tries to show that the strong position of atheism, far from being the only form of atheism, is the rarest among atheistic positions.  Instead, they advance the weak position of atheism.  From this perspective, they shift the burden of proof to the theists.  Here is how Positive Atheism magazine describes the ideal sequence when an atheist talks to a theist about the existence of God.

  • It must be realized that we are dealing entirely with claims -- claims that various deities exist.
  • In discussing such claims, it is always the person making the claim [the theist] who is responsible for providing evidence and strong argument. 
  • The person listening to the claim [the atheist] need not make any argument at all. 
  • The listener [the atheist] does not need to disprove a claim in order to reject it. 
  • If the person making the claim [the theist] fails to make a convincing case, the listener rightly rejects the claim as falsehood (or suspends judgment, based upon the strength of the claim).   In either event, the listener ends up lacking a belief in the object of the claim.
  • It is never the negative [weak-position] atheist's responsibility to prove or disprove anything. That job belongs to the person making the claim, which is the theist.
continue reading

Does the Theist or Atheist Have the Burden of Proof?

No doubt you are already familiar with the concept of the "burden of proof."  (Unless you have already had some unfortunate personal experience with the criminal justice system, just think about the O.J. Simpson trial or any television drama involving the criminal courts.)  The "burden of proof" is on the prosecutor (the D.A.) to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty.  If the prosecutor doesn't present enough convincing evidence, then the defendant is declared "not guilty."

It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists.  They don't want to be put in the position of having to prove the non-existence of God.  They know it can't be done.  As was stated in Positive Atheism magazine:  "one cannot prove a negative existential claim (that is, a claim that a thing does not exist)."  For this reason, the distinction between the weak position and the strong position of atheism becomes very important.  With weak-position atheism, the burden of proof falls on the theist.  With strong-position atheism, however, it is the atheist that carries the burden of proof.  Here is how it breaks down:

  • The weak-position atheist says:  "I don't believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists."  This position puts the theist on the defensive.  The theist must present evidence to persuade the weak-position atheist.  
  • The strong-position atheist says:  "Absolutely, positively, there is no god."  In response to this dogmatic position, the theistic can say:  "So prove it."  This means that the strong-position atheist must go on the defensive.
continue reading

An Atheism Primer

A recent op-ed piece by Charlotte Allen in the Los Angeles Times, "Atheists: No God, No Reason, Just Whining," prompted a flurry of reactions from the atheist community.  The most clever response came from Hermant Mehta, who basically said that atheists should be protected from outrageous claims such as those made by Allen (that atheists are basically boring).  Mehta even compared atheists to Jews, perhaps implying that such claims are tantamount to hate speech.

Exhanges like these, especially in the blogosphere, don't really serve much of a purpose, except to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes.  We need more productive conversations, such as the debate that occurred between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on the campus of Biola University.

continue reading
Syndicate content

Bloggers in Theism


Sign-up for the Newsletter
Sign-up for the Newsletter
Get the latest updates on relevant news topics, engaging blogs and new site features. We're not annoying about it, so don't worry.