Cumulative Case Apologetics
Advocates
- Paul Feinberg
- C.S. Lewis
- C. Stephen Evans
- Basil Mitchell
- Richard Swinburne
Advocates of the "cumulative case" method say the nature of the case for Christianity is not in any strict sense a formal argument from probability. In the words of Basil Mitchell, the cumulative case method does "not conform to the ordinary pattern of deductive or inductive reasoning." The case is more like the brief that a lawyer makes in a court of law or that a literary critic makes for a particular interpretation of a book. To see some examples of
A Word From Experience
The theist is not opposed to providing evidential support for their beliefs. However, before an individual evaluates the evidence, it must be acknowledged that a person’s response to an argument will always be influenced by his/her past and present personal history. Hence, it is folly to divorce the objective and subjective nature of evaluating arguments and evidence for God's existence. Therefore, arguments for God's existence will always have both a logical and psychological element. Also, there is a relationship between BELIEF THAT and BELIEF IN. For example, in James 2:19, it says the demons believe THAT God exists. Apologetics (giving reasons for the truthfulness of the Christian faith) may serve as a valuable medium through which God can operate, but faith is never the product of historical facts or evidence alone. Everyone takes their past and present history into examining the existence of God. Sin and a hardened heart can dampen a person’s receptivity to God’s invitation to them.
Approaching The Existence of God
When it comes to evidence, the skeptical issue in our culture mostly enters into the religious dialogue in the following way: “Do we really know what we think we know-especially in religion- when our beliefs are not properly based on evidence?” And in the case of God, who isn’t some material object, what kind of evidence should we expect to find? Verification has to do with how to test the meaning or truth of a claim. Back in the 1960′s, one of the dominant views in philosophy departments was what was called “The principle of empirical verifiability.” This view proved to be too narrow and self-defeating since on this ground the principle of empirical verifiability was not itself empirically verifiable itself.
Is Faith Blind?
In my discussion with people, I have found that many people quote Hebrews 11:1.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” I hear skeptics quote this passage to support the view that faith is blind and not supported by any evidence. Is this correct?
First, don’t quote this verse out of context. It has to be read in light of the rest of the chapter.
Second, we need to know how the verse and chapter fits in the overall context of the the book of Hebrews.
Most of the time this passage is laid out by skeptics in the following way:
1. If we can’t see God, God does not exist.
2. We can’t see God
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
What is wrong with this argument?
It must also be remembered to insist that God must be a visible object which can be observed with the five senses is to commit a category mistake. A category mistake is to assign to something a property which applies only to objects of another category.
What is Proof?
When a proof is given, it is many times given in the form of a deductive or inductive argument which includes two premises and a conclusion. While deductive logic looks at the cause (or condition) and determines its effects/consequents, inductive logic evaluates the effects and attempts to find the causes.
When it comes to talking about God’s existence, I have dropped the word “proof” from my vocabulary. I find that the word “proof” conveys the need to provide some sort of infallible, mathematical proof (e.g.,2+2=4) for God’s existence.
In his text, Logic: An Introduction, Lionel Ruby says: “Every person who is interested in logical thinking accepts what we shall call the “law of rationality,” which may be stated as follows: We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence…. By “adequate evidence” we mean evidence which is good and sufficient in terms of the kind of proof which is required. There are occasions when we require conclusive proof, as in mathematics, and there are occasions when it is sufficient to establish the probability of a given conclusion, as in weather prediction. But in all cases the evidence must be adequate to its purpose.” (1)
In my own experience, I have been told by some skeptics that they just want sufficient evidence. But they just can’t get there. But in reality, this really translates as what Ruby just stated as “conclusive proof” as in mathematics and logic. While the skeptic waits for the “conclusive proof,” they are allowed to live a life in complete autonomy from God.
The Inference To The Best Explanation Model
One of the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God’s existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. This type of explanation is commonly called “abduction” since it is a type of reasoning that is different from induction and deduction. Some people assert that unless the God of the Bible is a material object that can be verified with one’s five senses, He doesn’t exist. In response,I just noted that it is a category fallacy to ascribe sensory qualities to God or fault him for not being visible. Since we can’t see God as a material object, one way to approach this issue is to look at the effects in the world and make rational inferences to the cause of the effect. Hence, we must look to see if God has left us any pointers that lead the way to finding Him.
Two Kinds of Causes: Natural and Intelligent
If an atheist posits that the effects that we observe in the world can be explained purely by natural causes alone, then here is something to think about: First, natural laws do nothing and set nothing into motion. A “law of nature” is a description of what happens when no agent (whether it be divine, human, etc) is interfering or intervening into the casual order. So while natural laws are descriptive, they are not prescriptive.
When we observe the effects in the world, we can infer there are two kinds of causes---natural and intelligent. In other words, there are really two general kinds of explanations for events: intentional accounts (which demonstrate signs of value, design, and purpose) and non-intentional accounts (which lack values, design, and purpose).(2) For example, both Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick (who are staunch atheists) both admit that while the world shows every indication it is designed and have purpose, they add one qualification; it only looks that way. In other words, while the design is evident, it can be explained without resorting to any Designer. Since Crick and Dawkins (as well as other atheists) only accept natural causes, this means the phenomena we observe can be explained mostly by chance and randomness. So even if the world shows intentional causation, the design can be explained without saying there is a Designer. .
So what we see here is that science can't be divorced from philosophy. Without metaphysics one would not be able to construct a worldview. Metaphysical naturalism refers to the view that nature is the “whole show.” Methodological Naturalism (as currently discussed and advocated by Richard Dawkins, some atheists, etc.) is not a discovery of science. It must always be viewed as a presupposition of science as presently practiced.
Richard Lewontin’s comments in his January 9, 1997 article, Billions and Billions of Demons summarizes how naturalistic philosophy impacts the entire scientific process:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.” (3)
As Vern Poythress says:
“Methodological naturalism says roughly that modern science does conduct itself and should continue to conduct itself with the assumption that in the areas that it investigates, all the particular events and all the general patterns take place according to general laws that for practical purposes can be regarded as impersonal; and even if there are some exceptions, these are best ignored for the sake of getting on with the task of science. Methodological naturalism can be converted in some people’s minds into ontological or metaphysical naturalism, the view that there is no personal God and that the physical domain is all that there is. For philosophical and religious reasons, some people use methodological naturalism as a stepping stone toward ontological naturalism. But logically the two are distinct. Methodological naturalism more modestly proposes a practical restriction on the kind of hypotheses that scientists may consider, based partly on the pragmatic argument that the restriction will help science make progress rather than getting caught in fruitless byways. A number of people maintain that science by definition has a firm commitment to excluding the supernatural.” (4)
Lewontin's and Poythress's comments are extremely relevant in the current discussion on the existence of God. After all, if a non-theist has already ruled out any non-naturalistic explanation, we need to switch the discussion from science to philosophy.
Arguments for God's Existence: Can Chance, Randomness, and Natural Laws Do It Alone?
Let me present a general outline here:
In his book An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity Is Better Off With Religion Than Without It, author Bruce Sheiman gives a general outline for us: Human Life = Laws of physics X chance + randomness+ accidents+ luck X 3.5 billion yrs. The laws of physics for our present universe arose by chance (from a multitude of possible universes); the first forms of life developed by chance (arising by primordial soup combinations that resulted from the laws of physics plus accidents); the first concept of life developed purely by chance (genetic mutations and environmental randomness); and humans evolved by more improbable occurrences.
The atheist may find this completely plausible. But the theist will say it takes some faith to believe in this. As I said, natural laws (gravitation, magnetism, etc) do nothing and set nothing into motion. As I also said, a “law of nature” is a description of what happens when no agent (whether it be divine, human, etc) is interfering or intervening into the casual order. In our every day experience, we observe intelligent beings overpowering natural laws. For example, when an airplane takes off to fly in the sky, we can see natural laws being overpowered. So while finite humans can overpower natural laws on a regular basis, what prevents an all-powerful God from overpowering the very natural laws that He created?
1. The Fine-Tuning Argument
Remember that in order for any kind of life to get off the ground on our present earth, several conditions have to be in place. In other words, the universe must be:
1. Precisely tuned for life. “Life” means that the property of organisms can take in food, grow and adapt to an environment and reproduce, etc.
2. It actually produces life (just because a universe exists does not guarantee it produces life).
3. Life continues to be sustained despite harsh conditions; many of nature’s harsh conditions could have snuffed it out. (5)
The fine-tuning argument is not trying to give an explanation as to why this particular universe exists. Instead, it’s trying to give the best explanation as to why a life-permitting universe exists such as ours. In order for life (as defined above) to exist, the constants and quantities of the universe have to be fine-tuned in a precise fashion. Allow me to lay out the argument here:
1. The fine tuning of the universe resulted either from design or chance
2. It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance
3. Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed
Noted theoretical physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of a precisely-tuned universe like the one we have to being actualized to be one part in 10 to the 123th power. To illustrate, “Even if I were to write down a ’0′ on each separate proton and on each neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure-we should fall short of writing down the figure needed.” (6)
In the words of physicist Paul Davies,
“The numerical values that nature has assigned to the fundamental constants, such as the charge on the electron, the mass of the proton, and the Newtonian gravitational constant, may be mysterious, but they are crucially relevant to the structure of the universe that we perceive. As more and more physical systems, from nuclei to galaxies, have become better understood, scientists have begun to realize that many characteristics of these systems are remarkably sensitive to the precise values of fundamental constants. Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it. More intriguing still, certain structures, such as solar type stars, depend for their characteristic features on widely improbable numerical accidents that combine together fundamental constants from distinct branches of physics. And when one goes to study cosmology- the overall structure and evolution of the universe-incredulity mounts. Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.” (7)
Davies continues to say,
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alteration in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out....the seemingly miraculous concurrence of [these] numbers must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design." (8)
As Sir Fred Hoyle said, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (9)
Physicist Robin Collins presents an imaginary scenario where human space travelers arrive on Mars and find a fully functioning, life-sustaining biosphere. When the astronauts enter the Martian biosphere, they find the control panel that controls the environment. As Collins says:
"At the control panel they find that all the dials for its environment are set just right for life. The oxygen ratio is perfect; the temperature is seventy degrees; the humidity is fifty percent; there is a system for replenishing the air; there are systems for producing food, generating energy, and disposing of wastes. Each dial has a huge range of possible settings, and you can see if you were to adjust one or more of them just a little bit, the environment would go out of whack and life would be impossible." (10)
This describes the constants we live in. Each of the 30 plus dials (the constants of nature or hard facts about the universe) that we have discovered has a wide range of alterative settings. This means that nature’s laws are contingent. The universe could of turned out a lot differently. (11)
The evidence seems to match the biblical data. As the apostle Paul says that God’s existence and attributes can be “clearly seen” (Romans 1:18-20) since they have been “shown” to the unbelieving world through “the things that are made” (nature).
The atheist might say that the cosmic constraints happened to be right; given enough time or many possible worlds, such a world would eventually emerge. In other words, we just lucked out. Sadly, this is a case of the gamblers fallacy. It is safe to say that a non-theist will have to have faith in "chance" that the the laws of nature were set up with such precision to allow for the universe to be the way it is. But the a priori odds against the universe happening by chance alone are immense. So in actual fact a posteriori the universe does exist, and it could have happened that way, however remote the odds. To read more about this issue see here:
Did The Universe Know We Were Coming? A Look at the Fine Tuning Argument (Our Blog Post)
A Designed Universe: Robert Newman
Revisiting the God of the Gap: Ronald G. Larson
The Privileged Planet: www.privilegedplanet .com
Why the Universe Is the Way It Is and More Than A Theory: Hugh Ross
Fine Tuning The Multiverse Theory: Peter May
2. Information Theory
Another example is what we know as information theory. A single DNA molecule, the building block of all life, carries the same amount of information as one volume of an encyclopedia. No one seeing an encyclopedia lying in the forest would hesitate to think that it had an intelligent cause; so when we find a living creature composed of millions of DNA-based cells, we ought to assume that it likewise has an intelligent cause. Even Carl Sagan admits:
The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons—about a hundred trillion, 1014 bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space.… The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans. (12)
The kind of evidence that indicates an intelligent cause of life is called specified complexity. Sagan said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life. Such communication would be specified complexity. Or, to be more precise, since we know that complex messages always result from an intelligent cause, it remains only to see whether a living cell contains a complex message. With the discovery of the DNA code of life, the answer is clear. In all of nature, only living cells have complex messages known as specified complexity.
A chunk of quartz has specificity but no complexity. The message in a crystal is repetitive, like the message: starstarstarstar. A chain of random polymers (called a polypeptide) is complex, but it does not give a specific message. It looks more like this: fqpizgenyatkpvno. Only a living cell has both specificity and complexity that is not repetitious and communicates a message or a clear function, such as: This sentence has meaning. Hence, a living cell calls for an intelligent cause. Science speaks of simple life and complex life. Even the simplest one-celled organism has enough information that if spelled out in English would fill a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. (13)
A clear and distinct message—a complex design with a specified function—was caused by some form of intelligence that intervened to impose limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself. (14)
Studies in Information Theory confirm that one can determine an intelligent cause simply by the letter frequencies. In a series of letters that carry a message (even if we do not know what the message is) there is a certain letter frequency. This is what makes unknown codes decipherable and makes it possible to remove background noise from a tape and clarify the message.What could explain the sudden appearance of life and also provide for the informational organization of living matter? If we apply the principle of uniformity (analogy) to the question, the only cause that we know routinely does this kind of work is intelligence.(15)
For DNA to actually exist as information, there must be a cell in which it functions as information. However the cell is not made up of DNA, it is made up of proteins and it is vast array of protein structures and protein based activities that allow the genetic code to come to life. So this would mean we would need the chance generation of a multitude of protein structures as well as DNA. Since proteins are made of amino acids, they must occur in very particular sequences. Choosing a very small protein with only a very small protein with 100 amino acids we find the odds are 20 to the 100th power to one against that happening. So if we make that a little clearer, if we calculate the odds of that happening with a very modest protein, we see it is about 12,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 to one against getting the simplest protein structure by chance. (16) To read more about this issue-click here: Signature In The Cell by Stephen C. Meyer
3. The Cosmological Argument
Hopefully everyone can agree that the universe exists. But since we know that every effect has a cause, let’s go over some of the options as how the universe came into existence:
1. The universe doesn't exist, all is an illusion
2. The universe created itself
3. The universe is eternal (it never came into existence).
4. Something non-finite created the finite (and this we call God)
5. There is an argument that has yet to be created that can explain the universe without implying something non-finite.
I think we can agree that Number #1, #2 are silly. I hope nobody would say the universe is an illusion nor that the universe created itself. So let’s look at #3. Could it be that universe has always existed? This seems very unlikely given what we know about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law basically says that, in a closed system (such as our universe), there is a finite amount of usable energy. In other words, the total amount of usable energy in our universe will eventually be consumed, and would have been already if the universe had existed eternally. This is possibly the most important pieces of evidence supporting a finite universe.
One of the most well-know physicists today is Paul Davies. I will quote him again: Davies says,
Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative-that the universe has always existed in one form or one another-runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and the stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die. The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock and energy available in the universe to drive them out is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time. (17)
If we look at # 5, science is desperately looking for some way to explain the cause of our universe that doesn’t resort to a Designer. So here are some of the theories:
The Multiple Universe Theory
The Multiple Universe Theory says that there is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes. So we just happen to be in one universe of many that allows for all the requirements for life to get going on our present earth. Here is a response:
1. Even if we could show evidence for multiple universes this would only multiply the need for a Creator and Designer because each one would need creation and fine tuning to get started.
2. If true, who or what is keeping these universes from colliding?
3. There is no known mechanism that exists for generating such universes.
4. That itself would require impressive design.
String Theory
String Theory says that is a theory that matter is comprised of strings of energy that undergo quantum vibrations in 10 or 11 dimensions of space-time. Let me give a short response:
1. This is highly speculative– not a shred of experimental evidence.
2. String theory just pushes the question one step further “Why do strings exist rather than nothing?”
Does Quantum Physics Shows That Subatomic Events Are Uncaused: Can Something Come From Nothing?
Perhaps we can remember the line from the Sound of Music that says, “"Nothing comes from nothing nothing ever could.” Sadly, there are those that say that “something can come from nothing.” There is a theory called Quantum Physics which attempts to say that things can pop in and out of existence without resorting to any cause. But this is problematic since the latest findings in cosmology show that everything in the known universe—all time, space, energy, and matter—was once contained in a point of infinite density known as a singularity. This means there was “nothing” before there was time, space, matter, and energy. Also, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity shows time, space, and matter are co-relative. They are interdependent on one another-you cannot have one without the other. So to say that particles can come into existence out of nothing is incorrect. These particles arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their obligation. So the vacuum is not “nothing” but it is sea of fluctuating energy endowed with rich structure and subject to physical laws.(18)
So the most reasonable answer to the cause of the universe is #4. Whatever the cause is of the universe, it must be:
1. Spaceless: Because it created space:
2. Timeless: Because it created time.
3. Immaterial: Because it created matter.
4. Powerful: Because it created out of nothing.
5. Intelligent: Because the universe was precisely designed.
6. Personal: To convert a state of nothing into something.
We see that some of these characteristics of the First Cause resemble the God of the Bible.
Finite objects can be measured by how much space they occupy. They can be located somewhere which limits their ability to be somewhere else. With God, since He has no materiality, He cannot be localized at a particular point. Also, since God endures eternally, wholly above and separate from all the succession of time. God’s eternity (ever-present now) encompasses all the characteristics of time (past, present, future) in one moment (Genesis 21:33; Psalm 90:2). God is one without any parts. He is uncompounded, incomplex and indivisible, unique, and essentiality a Spirit being (John 1:18; 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15-16.
Objection: What about the silly objection, “What Caused God?” or “Who Designed The Designer?”
For starters, as I said earlier, it is a category mistake by assigning to something a property which applies only to objects of another category. We must not confuse two categories- the made and the unmade. Whatever is made has composition. Obviously, from the Orthodox Christian view, God has no composition. The Hebrew word for one is “echad” which leaves room for a plurality within a unity of substance- but there is no implication of a plurality of beings or parts within a being. Scripture admonishes mankind about making any physical image of God (Exodus 20:4). God is pure spirit ( John 4:24). He has no parts and is an immaterial Being. Hence, the God of the Bible is unmade. Also, many skeptics misunderstand the law of causality which states that everything that comes to be had a cause. Since God did not come to be, he does not need an explanation. If we had to continually offer an explanation for an explanation it would lead to an infinite regress. There would be no science.
See more on this issue here:
The Thomistic Cosmological Argument: David Beck
Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo: William Lane Craig
The Evidence for Christianity: William Lane Craig
The Cosmological Argument: Where did God Come from? The singularity and Who is Agent X?
The Vertical Cosmological Argument
First Principles and God’s Existence
4. Miracles
It is important to demonstrate that there are good philosophical reasons to believe that miracles are possible and actual. We can posit the following syllogism:
1. A miracle is an act of God that confirms the truth of God associated with it.
2. Jesus offered three lines of miraculous evidence to confirm His claim to be God—His fulfillment of prophecy, His sinless life and miraculous deeds, and His resurrection.
3. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles confirm that He is God
To see some of the arguments for and against miracles-see the following:
Hume, Miracles, and Probabilities: Meeting Earman’s Challenge: Peter Millican
Miracles: Dr. Tim McGrew: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Miracles-Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?/Blog Post
Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought: Norman Geisler
The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective: William Lane Craig
The Argument From Miracles: Daniel Bonevac
Historic Doubts Relative To Richard Whately: Did the Archbishop Believe in Miracles?
Objection: What about the other miracle claims such as Mormonism, Islam, etc., who make extraordinary claims? For starters, in evaluating any miracle claim, here are a few guidelines:
1. What does it claim to know?
2. How does it claim to know it?
3. What is the evidence for it?
4. What is the historical and religious context for the claim?
5. Jesus of Nazareth
Most of these points that I have made so far fall under general revelation. While general revelation manifests God as Creator, it does not reveal Him as Redeemer. The principle of progressive revelation means that God does not reveal everything at once. In progressive revelation, there are many cases where the New Testament declares explicitly what was only implicit in the Tanakh. One of these truths is the Jesus is the long awaited Messiah who takes away not only the sins of Israel, but the entire world (John 1: 29; 3: 16). Although general revelation shows man is under condemnation, it is not sufficient for salvation. If the God of the Bible is a good God, it would make sense that He would give a fuller revelation of Himself to humanity.
As Heb. 1:1–2 says, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.” The New Testament does not reveal Jesus as any ordinary prophet or religious teacher. Rather, it reveals Him as God incarnate (John 1:1; 8:58-59;10:29-31;14:8-9;20-28; Phil 2:5-7; Col 2:9;Titus 2;13; Heb 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1). Furthermore, Jesus is the only possible Savior for the human race (Matt. 11:27; John 1:18; 3:36; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 1: 5:11-12).
In examining the claims of Jesus, I will propose this syllogism:
1.The New Testament documents are historically reliable evidence.
2. The historical evidence of the New Testament shows that Jesus is God incarnate. This claim to divinity was proven by a unique combination of evidence which includes His miracles/His speaking authority, His actions, and His resurrection.
3. Therefore, there is reliable historical evidence that Jesus is God incarnate.
To read about the reliability of the New Testament-click here:
James M. Arlandson: Historical Reliability of the Gospels
What Can We Know About Jesus? A Friendly Response From Ratio Christi
Craig Blomberg: Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters
Mark Roberts: The Game of Telephone and Oral Tradition
Norman Geisler: A Note on the Percent of the Accuracy of the New Testament Text
Why I believe the New Testament is historically reliable: Gary Habermas
The Dating of the New Testament: Norman Geisler
Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels: Gary Habermas
To read more about the deity of Jesus: see these links:
“Did God Become a Jew? A Defense of the Incarnation.” Paul Copan
Who Do You Say I Am? A Look at Jesus
A Look at Jewish Messianism: A Crucified Messiah:What An Embarrassment!
Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? Messianic Apologetics/Tips in Understanding Messianic Prophecy
Sources:
1. See Lionel Ruby, Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott, 1960).
2. Charles Taliaferro, Philosophy of Religion: A Beginners Guide (Oxford: Oxford Publications, 2009), 70.
3. Richard Lewontin, “Billion and Billion of Demons” Available at www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm {accessed June 4, 2011}
4. Vern Poythress, Redemming Science: A God Centered Approach (Wheaton, ILL: Crossway Books, 2006), 261-264.
5. Paul Copan, Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion (St. Louis, MI: Chalice Press, 2007), 109.
6. Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 344.
7. Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1982), 7.
8. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 189.
9. Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20 (1982) 16.
10. J.P. Moreland, The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2009),79-80.
11. Ibid.
12. Sagan, op. cit., p. 278; cited in Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask. (Wheaton, IL.: Victor Books, 1990),20-21.
13. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker Books, 1999), 230.
14.Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. See Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wicker. Answering The New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God (Stubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2008), 30.
17. Paul Davies, “The Big Bang and Before, ”The Thomas Aquinas Lecture Series, Thomas Aquinas College (Santa Paula, CA: March 2002); cited in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith; Christian Truth and Apologetics: Third Ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 144.
18. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith; Christian Truth and Apologetics: Third Ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 114-115.