Atheists Affirm the Superiority of Christianity

I recently read an atheist cartoon—yes, there are such things. It was mocking the worship of an “invisible, inscrutable, and vindictive deity.”

Rather than be offended, I actually thought, “Hmm, an atheist affirms the superiority of Christianity!”

I’m sure the atheist would be put off, to say the least, by my interpretation.

And I’m sure many Christians are wondering what in the world I’m getting at.

Consider this. As a Christian, I think there are religions that worship an invisible, inscrutable, and vindictive deity. However, that’s not the God I worship in Christ.

From Invisible to Incarnate

Now, I’m sure that by “invisible,” the typical atheist is mocking all theists as believers in a myth—something or someone that is unseen because he does not exist.

From a Christian perspective, our God is “invisible” if by that one means “spiritual” and “immaterial.” However, as Francis Schaeffer said decades ago, “He is there and He is not silent.” For the Christian, “invisible” does not mean non-existent or inactive.

In Isaiah 46, Isaiah exposes those who do indeed worship a non-existent being. So, ironically, the atheist and Isaiah find some common ground!

But there’s more, so much more. Our invisible God is our incarnate God in Christ. As John reminds us:

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

The very Creator of all things visible and invisible not only became visible in the incarnation of Christ, He dwelt among us—pitched His tent, made His abode—with us. Immanuel—God with us!    Continue at BOB

Can We Prove the Existence of God?

Can we prove the existence of God? What exactly does it mean to prove something? What would count as a proof of God's existence? To explore these questions, let's consider one popular argument for God's existence and test it against some different criteria for proofs. Here's the argument:

1. If God does not exist, there are no objective, culture-transcending moral duties.
2. There are objective, culture-transcending moral duties.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Is this a proof of God's existence? One suggestion is that any sound argument constitutes a proof. An argument is sound if and only if (a) all its premises are true and (b) it is deductively valid, in the sense that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises (i.e., it's logically impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion to be false).

Is our argument sound? It's certainly deductively valid: it has the valid argument form of modus tollens (if P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P). Moreover, both of its premises are true. There are indeed objective, culture-transcending moral duties, such as the duty to care for one's children, and it's very hard to see what would ground such moral obligations if there were no God. At any rate, I believe that both premises are true, and so do many other people. But does everyone believe both premises? Well, no---and therein lies the rub.

Limitations of Sound Arguments

 

There's another obvious problem with the idea that any sound argument amounts to a proof. Consider the following argument for the existence of God:

1. Either the moon is made of green cheese or God exists.
2. The moon is not made of green cheese.
3. Therefore, God exists.   Continue at James Anderson

A Vulnerable Moment for a Well-known Atheist

During the 1950s and ’60s, evangelist Charles Templeton preached to large crowds. He was a close friend of Billy Graham and, many believed, a better preacher. But Charles was plagued with nagging doubts about the reliability of the Bible, specifically the Genesis account of creation. Feeling unable to stand under the strain, Templeton made the sad decision to bid farewell to God.

 

Many years later, investigative reporter, Lee Strobel interviewed Charles Templeton. It is one of the most powerful interviews I have ever heard.

Although advanced in years, Templeton maintained his rejection of the Bible. But when Strobel asked a question about Jesus Christ, he noted a clear change in Templeton’s body language. With softened posture and a “melancholy and reflective tone,” Templeton spoke of Jesus with a deep admiration. Keep Reading...