Apologetics Series
April 2, 2021
“On Proving God: Strategies for Defending the Existence of God”
by
Richard Klaus
1. Introduction—What is apologetics?
a. “Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life.”[1]
b. “Philosophy of life”: Worldview
c. Scriptural basis for apologetics
i. 1 Peter 3.15
ii. 2 Corinthians 10.3-5 --we need apologetics in the midst of the church!
iii. Acts 17.1-4, 16-18
iv. Acts 18.1-4, 24-28
v. Acts 19.8
vi. Philippians 1.16 --“defense of the gospel”
d. Goals for tonight:
i. Provide a worldview approach to Christian apologetics
ii. Provide some instruction on how to argue for God’s existence
iii. Provide some specific examples of argumentation
· NOTE: Using and recommending: James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity
e. For the next couple of weeks:
i. Next week: The Problem of Evil
ii. Third week: Challenging the Worldview of Naturalism
2. Worldview: Definition and Questions
a. “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) that we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”[2]
b. James Sire’s Worldview Questions[3]
i. What is prime reality—the really real?
ii. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
iii. What is a human being?
iv. What happens to a person at death?
v. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
vi. How do we know what is right and wrong?
vii. What is the meaning of human history?
viii. What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview?
c. “The fact is that we cannot avoid assuming some answers to such questions. We will adopt either one stance or another. Refusing to adopt an explicit worldview will turn out to be itself a worldview, or at least a philosophic position. In short, we are caught. So long as we live, we will live either the examined or the unexamined life. It is the assumption of this book that the examined life is better.”[4]
· Note: Not everyone will acknowledge being “religious” but everyone ought to recognize they have a worldview!
3. Worldview Analysis
a. Components of a worldview
i. Metaphysics: what exists; what is real
Right now, I’m sitting at my desk. I feel its solidity—I tapped it with my pen it and it seems solid. Most of us believe that it exists. We believe that matter exists. But is this all that exists? Some people say, “Yes—all that exists is matter and energy.” Others say something beyond the material realm exists—a transcendent realm some may call “spiritual.” Still
ii. Epistemology: Theory of knowledge. What do we know and how do we know it?
If a friend asks me, “Do you have any potato chips in the house?” I know how I would go about finding the answer. I would look at the spot in our kitchen where we keep our bags of chips—if I saw a bag, then I would know (or think I know) that I have potato chips. I used my eyes and other physical senses to get knowledge. Now, what if my friend asks me, “Is there love in this house?” the way I might know this may be different. I don’t find “love” just laying around in the kitchen. Epistemology deals with the kind of questions dealing with how I know what I know. What are the ways a person can get knowledge—scientific investigation, reason, intuition, testimony, religious revelation? Are these forms of getting knowledge reasonable—are we rational to rely on them? These are the questions of epistemology.
iii. Ethics: What is the nature of “right” and “wrong.” Seeks answers to specific ethical issues.
We all sense that certain actions are “right” or “wrong.” But what is the nature of this “sense” we have? Is it the case that what we think is right/wrong is just relative to us or is it something more objective and true for everybody? What provides the foundations for our ethical systems—personal preference, society, an evolutionary past, God, etc.? Ethics, as a philosophical category, also can deal with specific ethical questions such as bioethics (abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc.), political ethics (ethics of warfare, pacifism, etc.), and others.
b. Everybody has a worldview
i. Atheism and skepticism is not neutrality
ii. There is no neutrality
4. Three aspects of analysis—what we do with our disagreements.
a. What happens when worldviews come into conflict and conversation?
b. How can we reason through the differences?
c. Proof: Seeking to provide positive reasons and evidence in support of one’s worldview.
d. Defense: Answering and rebutting objections offered to one’s worldview.
e. Offense: Critically questioning and analyzing another’s
We have all engaged in Proof, Defense, and Offense in all sorts of areas of life. For example, if you and a friend have ever debated which pizza place is the best, then you probably used these categories. Here’s an imaginary example:
Fred: “I think the best pizza place is Ray’s Pizza. It has great crust, fresh sauce, and the ingredients are put on in great quantity.” [PROOF]
Linda: “But Ray’s is too expensive!”
Fred: “No it’s not. They have amazing lunch specials which are under $10.00.” [DEFENSE]
Linda: “My favorite place is Little Caesar’s pizza.”
Fred: “Little Caesar’s?! The crust is like cardboard and the sauce is not much better than ketchup!” [OFFENSE]
Of course, when we are debating worldviews, the importance level is heightened and people can become very tense when disagreements arise about the things they hold most dear in their lives.
5. Tests for the truthfulness of a worldview.
a. Consistency: Does the worldview have contradictions?
b. Coherence: Does the worldview have pieces that fit together well or are they in tension with each other?
c. Explanation: Does the worldview explain things we observe about ourselves and the world around us?
d. Evidence: Does the worldview fit the evidence we have available to us—evidence from history, science, conscience, etc.?
Note: “That said, this test can be tricky because, as I noted earlier, there’s a complex two-way relationship between worldviews and evidence. No one interprets evidence in isolation from their worldview. Since our worldviews include our ultimate presuppositions about what’s real, what’s reasonable, what’s possible, and so on, our worldviews influence how we interpretand evidence that is presented to us. So we can’t just point to ‘the evidence’ or ‘the facts’ to prove or disprove a worldview.” –James Anderson
e. Existential: Can I consistently live out this worldview?
6. Comparative worldview approach
a. “Ideally, a worldview should be evaluated in comparison with otherworldviews—at least with the major alternatives. The reason for this is that if we think a certain worldview faces some difficulty or problem, we might be tempted to dismiss it simply for that reason, without taking
b. Comparing Christian theism to naturalism as a philosophical worldview
Note:
(1) More worldviews than naturalism—“spiritual” alternatives (i.e., Wicca).
(2) Nevertheless, naturalism is a major force in college and higher education and our culture.
c. Definitions of naturalism
i. “Naturalism asserts that all of reality—including us—consists at bottom of nothing more than fundamental physical particles and forces, operating according to the laws of physics.”[6]
ii. “Naturalism denies that there are any spiritual or supernatural realities transcendent to the world or at least we have no good ground for believing that there could be such realities… It is the view that anything that exists is ultimately composed of physical components.”[7]
7. Our series
a. Tonight: Proof: reasons to consider the existence of God as rational; giving reasons
b. Week two: Defense: the problem of evil
c. Week three: Offense: challenging the worldview of naturalism
8. Proof: Presenting positive evidence and reasons for God’s existence
a. Doesn’t require certainty
b. Not the same as persuasion
c. Nature of the object of knowledge determines the kind of evidence and reasons we can expect
· Example: Consider the following questions and how you would go about “proving” the answer
o “Is there a bag of chips in the house?”
o “Is there radiation in the house?”
o “Is there love in the house?”
o “Is there logic in the house?”
9. God as an object of knowledge: The Nature of the object of belief
a. God—the Christian God—is not like any other piece of knowledge
b. Skeptic’s view: knowing God’s existence is like belief in…
i. Loch Ness monster
ii. Fairies
iii. Flying Spaghetti Monster
c. “What these skeptics often fail to recognize is that the God of the Bible is a fundamentally different kind of being than Santa Claus, the Yeti, and so on, and therefore the way in which one proves God’s existence must be fundamentally different too.”[8]
d. “Indeed, according to Christianity God is fundamentally and radically different from every other thing in existence.”[9]
10.The Significance of the object of belief
a. Loch Ness monster
i. Little significance hangs on
ii. Intriguing and some media coverage but no impact on our everyday lives
b. “Not so with God. If God exists, that affects everything, simply because of who God is. If God exists, everything else depends for its existence and nature on God. If God exists, the ultimate reality is personal and rational and moral in nature.”[10]
c. “The question about the existence of God, likewise, is not just a question about whether one more thing exists in the inventory of reality. It is a question about the ultimate context for everything else. The theist and the atheist should see everything differently.”[11]
11.The Christian God: Completely Unique
a. God transcends both space and time
i. Loch Ness monster and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist in space and time
ii. God created both space and time
b. God is an infinite being
c. God is absolutely independent: self-existence; “necessary Being”
i. a se= Aseity
“The term aseity comes from the Latin phrase a
ii. Everything else depends for its existence on God but God depends on nothing for his existence.
12.Acts 17.16-34: Paul at Athens
a. Sophisticated unbelief: non-Christian philosophers (v. 18 Epicurean and Stoic)
b. Read Acts 17.23-29
c. Paul is presenting a radically unique view of God: correcting and refining their faulty notions
i. v. 29: “… we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like…”
ii. We ought not to think that God—the biblical God—is like…
1. the Loch Ness monster
2. Flying Spaghetti Monster
3. Thor or Odin
13.In light of the radical nature and significance of God’s existence, how do we go about proving or demonstrating this to be true?
a. “So how can God’s existence be proven? Here’s my answer in a nutshell,… Even though God cannot be directly perceived
b. James Anderson lists out six features he discusses:[14]
i. God and Existence
ii. God and Values
iii. God and Morality
iv. God and Reason
v. God and Mind
vi. God and Science
c. Others have argued in
i. Roy Abraham Varghese[15]
1. Rationality
2. Life: the capacity to act autonomously
3. Consciousness: the ability to be aware
4. Conceptual thought: the power of articulating and understanding meaningful symbols such as are embedded in language
5. The human self: the “center” of consciousness, thought, and action
6. Varghese adds this helpful comment:
“Three things should be said about these phenomena and their application to the existence of God. First, we are accustomed to hearing about arguments and proofs for God’s existence. In my view, such arguments are useful in articulating certain fundamental insights, but cannot be regarded as “proofs” whose formal validity determines whether there is a God. Rather, each of the five phenomena adduced here, in their way,
ii. Gregory Ganssle[17]
1. “A World That Is Ordered and Susceptible to Rational Investigation Fits better in a Theistic
2. “A World with Consciousness Fits Better in a Theistic
3. “A World with Significant Free Agency Fits Better in a Theistic
4. “A World with Objective Moral Obligations Fits Better in a Theistic
14.My list for tonight: the existence of an infinite, personal God best explains…
a. Reason and consciousness
b. Moral values and obligation
c. Science
· NOTE: Each of these topics could be its own session—in fact, the last one regarding Science, was a full presentation back in 2018!
· The goal
15.Reason and the laws of logic: Fundamental laws of thought and reasoning
a. Laws of logic
i. A is A (law of identity)
ii. A is not non-A (law of non-contradiction)
iii. Either A or non-A (law of excluded middle)
b. Nature of these laws; not like physical laws!
i. Universal
ii. Invariant
iii. Immaterial (abstract in nature)
c. The nature of the laws of logic don’t make sense in a naturalistic, materialistic universe
· “It is further supposed that we know these laws. But the only acceptable physicalist analysis of knowledge would have to be some kind of causal interaction between the brain and the objects of knowledge. But if we know or have insight into the laws of logic, we must be in some kind of physical relationship to the laws of logic. This is quite impossible if the laws of logic are, as I have contended, nonphysical, nonspatial
· Worldview tests for truth: Consistency and Coherence
d. Christian answer
i. Laws of logic as grounded in the nature of God
ii. Laws of logic reflect the nature of God’s thinking and how we ought to think
e. Irony
i. Atheist claim: Belief in God is illogical
ii. But the argument here is that we need God to make sense of logic!
16.Consciousness—we need conscious minds to use logic
a. Features of consciousness
i. First-person subjective perspective on the world
ii. Thoughts, feelings, and experiences
iii. Pain
1. “An experience of pain is what philosophers call a quale. It is an experience with a feel or a way it seems to be to its subject from a first-person point of view. Pain is a certain way of feeling that each person apprehends experientially. To ask whether extreme pain feels extremely painful is odd because extreme pain is feeling
2. “Even if we could acquire an exhaustive physical description of your brain, right down to the last physical particle, that would tell us nothing about the experience you’re having.”[20]
iv. Intentionality: our thoughts are about something
b. These mental events are not physical in nature.
c. Naturalism/materialism’s problems with consciousness
i. All that exists is material in nature—how to explain the mental?
1. “The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process… If this is the correct account of our origins, then there seems neither need nor room, to fit any nonphysical substances or properties into our theoretical accounts of ourselves. We are creatures of matter. And we should learn to live with that fact.”[21]
2. “The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. What does this mean? It means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head.”[22]
ii. “[F]or naturalists the key philosophical project of strict naturalism is to locate the mental in the physical world, and this means explaining the mental in terms that are not mental.”[23]
1. “Naturalism’s major problem, then, is explaining how mindless forces give rise to minds, knowledge, and sound reasoning. But every
2. “Once you understand the nature of matter, mass-energy, you realize that, by its very nature, it could never become ‘aware,’ never ‘think,’ never say ‘I.’ But the atheist position is that, at some point in the history of the universe, the impossible and the inconceivable took place.”[25]
3. “The difficulty for Naturalism is that it’s very hard to conceive how minds could arise out of purely material processes. Conscious minds have very distinctive features, such as
iii. Further problems with materialism and the mind[27]
- The problem of the unity of consciousness. How could a material object like the brain, extended across space and composed of billions of discrete physical parts, serve as the basis for the unity of our conscious experience?
- The problem of personal identity over time. If the matter of my brain is entirely replaced over time, how can I be the same person as that cute little boy in photos from the 70s?
- The problem of intentionality. My thoughts have the property of intentionality or ‘
aboutness’ . They’re about things beyond themselves; they’re directed towards those things. But no purely material structure as such has intentionality or ‘aboutness’ . Physical structures (like words on a page) only have ‘aboutness’ derivatively, in virtue of the prior operation of a mind. Consequently, thoughts, beliefs, and other intentional mental states cannot be explained in purely material terms. (Don’t take my word for it; hard-nosed materialist Alex Rosenberg will tell you the same.)
- The problem of epiphenomenalism and one-way causation. If consciousness and mind are simply emergent phenomena, arising out of an entirely material substrate, they can have no causal power over that material substrate. Given a materialist account of mind, there can be at most brain-to-mind (“bottom-up”) causation, but not mind-to-brain (“top-down”) causation. But in that case, the commonsense assumption that my physical actions are caused by my choices is quite mistaken. I may feel like I have rational, purposeful control over
by actions, but if materialism is true, that feeling is entirely illusory.
d. Theism and consciousness
i. Two views
1. Matter preceded and produced mind (naturalist option)
2. Mind preceded and produced matter and other minds (Christian theism)
ii. “The Christian worldview… affirms that mind preceded matter. Not human minds, of course, but God’s mind. God is an eternal, self-existent, transcendent, personal being with a mind—and not just any mind, but a perfect, absolute, infinite mind. Furthermore, God created a universe that had both material and mental aspects from the outset: He created humans with minds as well as bodies. Not only can we physically manipulate the universe with our bodies,
e. Irony
i. Atheist as a conscious person can’t explain consciousness!
ii. Christian theism as a worldview makes better sense of the reality of consciousness.
17.Moral values and obligation (this will be quick; more on week three)
a. Moral realism:
· Objective moral values exist; moral values are discovered—not created
· These moral values are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not
Note: Four observations about moral facts and explaining them[29]
1. Moral facts are not physical in nature; they don’t have physical properties.
2. Moral facts are a kind of communication; a proposition which is a command. Commands only make sense with two minds involved.
3. Moral facts have a force of feeling—a feeling of “oughtness.”
4. Moral facts can be violated and this produces a certain kind of discomfort—a sense of guilt.
How to explain—moral rules are…
1. an Illusion
2. an Accident
3. a product of Intelligence
b. Quotations regarding the difficulty of reconciling naturalism/atheism with moral realism.
· Jean-Paul Sartre
“The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a
· Julian Baggini
“If there is no single moral authority [i.e., no God] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… [and] that means that moral claims are not true or false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error.”[31]
· Friedrich Nietzsche
“There are altogether no moral facts”; indeed, morality “has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”[32]
· Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg—“Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” (2003)
“Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In
“…morality is at most an instrumentally useful illusion.”[34]
“But when we combine an evolutionary account of ethical beliefs with the conception of Darwinian theory as a ‘universal acid’… the result is moral nihilism. If all apparently purposive processes, states, events, and conditions are in reality the operation of a purely mechanical substrate neutral algorithm, then as far [as] explanatory tasks go, the only values we need
c. This leads Christian philosopher Mitch Stokes to conclude:
“If naturalism is true, there’s no morality apart from what humans value, want, or prefer. Morality is purely a matter of taste. In short, naturalism implies moral nihilism, the view that there are no human-independent moral rules.”[36]
d. Christian theism and moral value and obligation
· In contrast… Christian theism does provide a worldview that more readily comports with moral realism.
1. God is the standard of moral value—he is himself “the good”
2. God’s commands provide a basis for our moral duties
3. God as a personal, righteous Judge ensures moral accountability—evil will be punished appropriately and justice vindicated
Excursus: More fully developed thoughts on the above by William Craig
· William Craig offers the following three points that are illustrative of Christian-theistic ethics and compatible with the teaching of Jesus.
· (1) “First, if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral values. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that the Holocaust was morally evil even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought it was good.
“On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. He is the locus and source of moral value. God’s own holy and loving nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions are measured. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth. Thus, if God exists, objective moral values exist.”
· (2) “Second, if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral duties. To say that we have objective moral duties is to say that we have certain moral obligations regardless of whether we think so or not.
“On the theistic view, God’s moral nature is expressed toward us in the form of divine commands that constitute our moral duties. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from his moral nature. On this
· (3) “Third, if theism is true, we have a sound basis for moral accountability. On the theistic view, God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Despite the inequalities of this life, in the
e. Irony
i. Atheists sometimes want to talk about…
1. How bad Christians have been in history
2. How bad the Bible is
3. The problem of evil
ii. And, yet… atheistic materialism cannot account for objective moral values.
iii. Objective moral values fit better within the Christian worldview.
18.Science
* NOTE: I presented an entire talk on this topic at the 2018 Deep Faith Conference: “Who’s Afraid of Science? Why Science Needs God!”[38] I also turned these notes into an essay: “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict”[39]
a. Science rests upon philosophical assumptions
i. These philosophical assumptions are not proven by science but have to be presupposed in order to do science
ii. Scientism is false—see J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018)
b. Moreland offers the following list of presuppositions that are utilized by scientists to undergird the scientific methodology.[40]
(1) The existence of the external world.
(2) The orderly nature of the external world and its knowability.
(3) The uniformity of nature and induction.
(4) The laws of logic, epistemology, and truth.
(5) The reliability of the senses and the mind.
(6) The adequacy of language to describe the world.
(7) The applicability of mathematics and the existence of numbers.
(8) The existence of values.
c. Christian theism makes better sense of these philosophical presuppositions
i. “The nature of the assumptions of science
“If we begin with ‘In the
ii. “Atheistic worldviews can’t account for why science is reasonable and successful because they can’t provide any rational justification for the foundational assumptions of science. Ironically, then, atheistic scientists have to live by faith! Or to put the point more provocatively: they’re tacitly depending on a radically different worldview—a God-centered worldview—whenever they engage in their scientific work.”[42]
d. Irony
i. Claim: “Christianity is anti-science!”
ii. Truth: Christian worldview fits better with presuppositions needed for science.
19.Conclusion
a. My goals
i. Provide some instruction on how to argue for God’s existence
1. What are we talking about when we talk about “God?”
a. Nature and Significance of God as an object of knowledge
b. God of the Bible is completely unique; not like other objects of knowledge
2. Compare worldviews
a. Naturalism as a worldview contender
b. No neutrality
3. Only the existence of God makes sense out fundamental realities we encounter and use all the time
a. Without the existence of God, nothing else makes sense!
ii. My list of fundamental realities
1. Reason and consciousness
2. Moral values and obligations
3. Science
[1]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 1.
[2]James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog—5thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 20.
[3]James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog—5thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 22-23.
[4]James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog—5thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 24.
[7]Kai Nielson as quoted in Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism( Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 9. James Sire’s The Universe Next Door—5thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009) has a chapter—chapter four: “The Silence of Finite Space: Naturalism”—which contains a good discussion of philosophical naturalism.
[12]John M. Frame, “Divine Aseity and Apologetics” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics editors: K. Scott Oliphant and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 115.
[14]He does this in his book Why Should I Believe Christianity
[15]Roy Abraham Varghese “The ‘New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger” in Antony Flew There Is A God (HarperOne, 2007), 161-162.
[16]Roy Abraham Varghese “The ‘New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger” in Antony Flew There Is A God (HarperOne, 2007), 161-163.
[17]Gregory E. Ganssle A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2009), 168-175.
[18]Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity, 2003), 81.
[20]James Anderson, “Materialism and Mysteries,” Analogical Thoughts (February 19, 2021)—online: https://www.proginosko.com/2021/02/materialism-and-mysteries/.
[21]Paul Churchland as quoted in J. P. Moreland, “Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Psychology as Research Programs: A Comparison of Their Most Plausible Specifications” in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress, 2007), 130.
[22]Quoted in J. P. Moreland, “Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Psychology as Research Programs: A Comparison of Their Most Plausible Specifications” in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress, 2007), 131.
[24]Ronald H. Nash, Faith
[25]Roy Abraham Varghese “The ‘New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger” in Antony Flew There Is A God (HarperOne, 2007), 163.
[27]Items in
[29]These are taken from Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998), 165-169.
[30]Quoted in Peter S.
[31]Quoted in Peter S. Williams “Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?” (2011). Williams is quoting Julian Baggini Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2003), 41-51.
[32]Quoted in Paul Copan “Grounding Human Rights: Naturalism’s Failure and Biblical Theism’s Success” in Legitimizing Human Rights: Secular and Religious Perspectives, Angus J. L. Menuge, ed. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013), 5. Note: pagination is to online version: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/Paul_Copan-Grounding_Human_Rights_in_Menuge_2013.pdf. Copan is quoting Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols and the Anti-Christ(New York: Penguin Books, 1968), 55, 70.
[33]Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy18(5);
[34]Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy18(5);
[35]Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy18(5);
[36]Mitch Stokes, How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2016), 227.
[37]William Lane Craig, “Opening Statement” Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics; editors, Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield), 30-31.
[38]Richard Klaus, “Who’s Afraid of Science? Why Science Needs God!”—Notes from Deep Faith Apologetics Conference (October 20, 2018)—online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2018/10/whos-afraid-of-science-why-science.html.
[39]Richard Klaus, “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict” Christian Post(January 12, 2019)—online: https://www.academia.edu/38140780/Why_Science_Needs_God_Analyzing_the_Religion_and_Science_Conflict.
[40]The following list of presuppositions is drawn from J. P. Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989), 108-133
[42]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity
