Does God exist? Roger, a Christian and former atheist, shares his journey and how evidence and logic point to God’s existence and identity.

The anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page

I’ve added an anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page to my site. In this pandemic, since more people are absent from work or unemployed, and since many are feeling greater financial stress (and more stress in general), more people are discouraged; some are tempted to commit suicide.

This anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page contains selections that I copied from this home page, from my first and fourth posts, and from my “About Roger” page; I’ve also added some new information and insights. This information includes logical reasons that SHOULD deter any objectively-minded, logically-thinking person from committing suicide—some very cogent reasons are among them. Of course, these reasons apply to discouragement as well and are why, for years now, I’ve almost always been positive and optimistic, and very-rarely discouraged.

If these reasons are at least POSSIBLY true, discouragement should decrease and suicide becomes an inadvisable option. Why? Because it’s then POSSIBLE that someone discouraged or contemplating suicide may still be able to enjoy life, following the specifics provided on this page, which may be accessed from the hidden menu or by clicking on the above links or here.

The anti-philosophical-relativism page

A significant number of people today believe in philosophical relativism—that truth is (supposedly) relative to a person’s individual preferences of what to believe, and that, resultantly, truth is (supposedly) subjectively-perceived; it’s whatever one prefers to believe about practically anything! And therefore (supposedly), what’s true for you may not be true for me and vice-versa.

(One finds this relative “truth filter” typically applied to the subjects of ethics and religion—where many do not readily perceive objective truth, as I and knowledgeable theists and Christians do. One NEVER finds this relative “truth filter” applied to the subjects of mathematics and science, where objective truth is readily apparent.)

Since it’s extremely obvious to me (for many reasons) that philosophical relativism logically refutes itself and does not correspond to reality—AND since it actually hinders a reasonable and accurate evaluation of reality—I included an in-depth consideration and refutation of it in sections #9 through 13 of my seventh post, “Part 2 of the Moral Argument: Ravi Zacharias’ perspective and the objection of philosophical relativism.” I also now offer this on a separate, anti-philosophical-relativism page, so that it might be easily and directly accessed by links such as this or from the hidden menu.

The hidden menu

Those who are proficient in working with computers and online will be aware of this: there is a menu of pages and posts that’s normally hidden, but which may be viewed by clicking on the icon with the three little horizontal bars in the upper right on this page (the home page) or on any blog page. (To see this icon, scroll to the top of this page.) After you click on the icon and the menu is open, click on the “x” (that replaces the three little horizontal bars) in order to hide the menu again. This menu has a complete list of pages and posts.

Also: on the “Blog Feed” page (accessed from the menu), by scrolling down, you are able to access all posts and their descriptions. Another list of posts (and descriptions) is featured on this page, above the “Following my blog” section (above this section).

The “About Roger” page

There is an “About Roger” page describing my transition from belief in atheism to belief in biblical theism (i.e. belief in the existence of the Judeo-Christian or biblical God). This page also conveys my perspectives on theology, apologetic reasoning, deductive arguments, and on why I’ve studied apologetics. (On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?) This page may be accessed by the hidden menu or by clicking here: https://reasonbasedfaith.com/about-roger/

Hyperlinks

For the sake of complete clarity, I’ll bring up another point that’s obvious to those proficient in working with computers and online: in potentially any paragraph, hyperlinks (in red, orange, tan, or blue-colored text) are links (i.e. clickable texts) to other web pages where one or more statements that I’ve made or quoted (in that paragraph) will be substantiated, at least as being probably true or correct. If a reader desires substantiation, he or she should click on one or more hyperlinks. (Alternately, in lists, of course, the hyperlinks are simply links to recommended web pages or videos.)

Reason versus faith? Not hardly!

Some atheists claim that “faith” is believing in something apart from any evidence or reason. However, this is a mischaracterization of what faith actually is.

Evidence and reason are not opposed to faith; they can serve as a basis for faith! The following Scripture verses show that, from a biblical perspective, faith can be based on evidence and logic or reason: Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

Romans 10:17

Christians will point to the well-known Scripture verse, Romans 10:17 (“…faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” NKJV). I and most Christians understand this verse to mean that faith comes by hearing truth, and this truth is God’s Word or Message; i.e. the Bible. (And, more specifically, faith in Christ comes from the Word or Message of Christ; that is, the Gospel.)  

Some Christians may therefore say, “My faith is not based on evidence and reason; it’s based on God’s Word—on what God has said.” However, in Romans 10:17, God’s Word (the Bible) IS an evidence and a reason to believe in God—particularly because of the (aforementioned) scholarly-affirmed historical reliability of the New Testament (see section #4 in Post #8). Again, I recommend the astute, scholarly book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg; B&H Academic, 2016. On this same topic, I also recommend the lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004). Cf. Are the Gospel narratives legendary or historically reliable?; Are there historical documentations of Jesus outside the Bible? 

The reason-based faith concept

Therefore, Romans 10:17 agrees with this reason-based faith concept—which really originated with the above Scripture verses. Two of these verses (Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31) demonstrated the reason-based faith concept in the time of Moses—about 1400 BC! Thus, the reason-based faith concept essentially originated with the Bible, as we know it today.

Here’s an objection: someone may sincerely ask: “What about Second Corinthians 5:7? This tells us that we walk by faith, not by sight.” Yes, but this one verse can’t nullify the truths contained in the many verses in the fourth paragraph above, which tell us that, from a biblical perspective, faith can be based on evidence and logic or reason. Hence, the only logical way of interpreting Second Corinthians 5:7 is to assume that, AFTER one’s faith has already been established (ideally, from my perspective, by evidence and reason), THEN one walks by faith—i.e. one trusts God, knowing from many evidences and reasons (including His Word) that He is indeed trustworthy.

Dr. Craig defines faith

When I was a committed and passionate atheist, I based my life on reason—that is, evidence and logic—not faith. I still base my life on evidence and logic, but now I’ve found that evidence and logic (or reason) serve as a basis for and promote a vital faith in God.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the aforementioned academic philosopher, theologian, and university professor, accordingly provided this definition: “Faith is trusting in what we have good reason to think is true. And so, the question is: Do we have good evidence for God? If we do, then we face the question: Am I going to put my trust in Him?” (This quote is from the video, “Why Should I Believe that God Exists? Ratio Christi Clemson welcomes Dr. William Lane Craig” at the 1 hour, 2-minute mark; accessed 9/21/2020.)

Instinctive faith or reason-based faith

On the other hand, some people seem to believe or have faith instinctively, apart from any evidence or reason. While I believe that God can impart faith directly to a person’s spirit (effectively bypassing the mind; e.g. 1Corinthians 12:7-9); even so, I and many others have felt that we needed to base our faith (or trust in God) on what good evidences and reasons show to be true, and so we do. Perhaps I feel this need more-acutely because of my atheistic background.

Faith in a chair

Here’s a clear example: when I sit in a particular chair for the first time, I have faith that the chair will hold me up—not because my faith is blind and based on no evidence—but because my faith is based on the evidence that, every time I’ve sat in a chair, it has supported my weight. My faith is therefore based on reason, or on evidence plus logic: (1) the evidence that chairs have always supported my weight, plus (2) the logic that, because chairs have always done so, this particular chair will probably do so as well.

Thus, reason, or evidence plus logic, gives me the faith that I have for successful sitting! I have faith in or trust the chair to support my weight, and I therefore sit in it. As Dr. Craig defined it, “Faith is trusting in what we have good reason to think is true.” (Of course, ultimately, I have faith not just in a chair, but also in the chair’s manufacturer—that he or she did a good job, as most apparently do.)

Professor Craig Hazen and his advice for a religious quest

I agree with the perspective of Dr. Craig Hazen, a Professor of Comparative Religion and Christian Apologetics at Biola University, and Founder and Director of the Master of Arts Program in Christian Apologetics—the largest and highest ranked program of its kind in the world. He also directs the Master of Arts Program in Science and Religion at Biola.

For twenty years, he has been the editor-in-chief of the philosophy journal, Philosophia Christi, the world’s top-circulating philosophy of religion journal. With a scholastic background in science as well as in philosophy, for a number of years, he taught biology, chemistry, and computer science.

Professor Hazen has spoken at hundreds of universities and churches in North America, Europe, and Asia on religion and science, Christianity among world religions, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, cultural trends in religion, and on prayer. He is also a former co-host of a national radio talk program and is a regular on-camera expert for video and broadcast television.

A religious quest

In the scholarly anthology, Passionate Conviction (B&H Publishing Group, 2007), Professor Hazen described how he suggested that students could embark upon a religious quest:

“What I proposed to do that morning was to give them an expert guided tour on just how a clear-thinking person would go about a religious quest. Here you are at college, I told them, attempting to use analytic skills and careful reasoning to gain knowledge and insight into subjects ranging from music appreciation to organic chemistry. Why shouldn’t we use those same cognitive tools to help us make sense of the seemingly crazy world of religion, especially since many of you are doing some careful evaluation about which religion you might embrace yourself one day? In other words, how would a thoughtful person go about a religious quest?” (Passionate Conviction, Chapter 10, pp. 141, Kindle Locations 2495-2499)

First, he suggested, “I made the unabashed claim that any thoughtful person who was on a religious quest would obviously start that quest by exploring Christianity first. … I think Christianity is, by any rational measure, the obvious place for a thinking person to start the exploration. … I told the class that I would give them four reasons a thoughtful person on a religious quest would obviously start that exploration with Christianity.” (Ibid, pp. 142-143, Kindle Locations 2513-2521)

The Professor’s first reason

“1. Christianity Is Testable.” Professor Hazen delved into this first reason: “I told the students that morning that at the heart of the Christian tradition are some claims about Jesus—His life, His teaching, His death, and His resurrection—that are testable. What I mean by this is that these claims are such that any thinking person can examine the evidence and reasonably determine whether the claims are historically accurate or justified. I think this is one of the primary reasons a thoughtful person sorting through the various religious traditions would obviously start with Christianity. Christianity is unique in that it actually invites people to investigate carefully its claims about God, humankind, the universe, and the meaning of life.” (Ibid, p. 143, Kindle Locations 2527-2531)

Roger: the reason for Christianity’s testability, of course, is that its claims (in the New Testament) are anchored in history, in numerous historical evidences which themselves have been supported by using the historical criteria of authenticity. For the details, see section #4 in Post #8 (where I describe the most-prominent evidences) and seethe astute, scholarly book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg; B&H Academic, 2016. (Cf. Are the Gospel narratives legendary or historically reliable?; Are there historical documentations of Jesus outside the Bible?https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos & https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg.)

Objective knowledge versus subjective impressions

Continuing with Professor Hazen’s explanation: “This idea that the truth of Christianity is linked to the resurrection of Jesus in a testable way does set Christianity apart from the other great world religious traditions in a dramatic fashion. … When you boil it all down, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the like are about inner, personal experience and not about objective public knowledge. Other traditions seem to be about objective knowledge until you probe a little more deeply. …At the end of the day … they … [really] rely on inner [i.e. subjective] experience as their ultimate source and warrant for religious knowledge.” (Passionate Conviction, pp. 144-145, Kindle Locations 2544-2552)

Roger: by the latter, Professor Hazen is obviously referring to those traditions in which one person (the founder of that religion) has reportedly seen an angel or heard God speak to him—without independent attestations from other witnesses and without historical evidences that have been multiply attested and supported by the other historical criteria of authenticity—which solidly support the New Testament. (See sections #4 and 6 in Post #8; these criteria include multiple, independent attestations, eyewitness testimony, early attestation, the criterion of embarrassment, hostile or enemy attestation, and archeological corroboration.)

Thus, since these traditions (to which the Professor referred) have no independent attestations with which to support their central claim, one is left with mere inner, subjective impressions as the ultimate warrant for the claim—and for one’s religious convictions. Of course, inner, subjective impressions can easily vary due to factors that are of incidental or slight relevance to the truth-claim being evaluated. Therefore, since factors irrelevant to the truth-claim’s veracity can powerfully influence subjective impressions, I cannot recommend using them as a wise method of ascertaining truth!

Professor Hazen concludes: “This is why Christianity is unique and why a thoughtful person on a religious quest would be wise to start the quest with Christianity; it really is testable.” (Ibid, p. 145, Kindle Location 2553)

By harmonizing the Professor’s words with the words of other reputable scholars (such as Dr. William Lane Craig), I conclude that it’s better to have objective, testable evidence and logical reasons—rather than mere subjective impressions—upon which we base our religious convictions. We DO have objective, testable evidence and logical reasons with Christianity.

The Professor’s second reason

Professor Hazen then mentioned three other reasons why, on a religious quest, a thinking person would explore Christianity first:

2. The Professor observed that: “In Christianity, Salvation is a Free Gift from God. Christianity is unique in its offer of salvation by grace alone, a free gift from God to anyone who will receive it.… Salvation in Christianity is a free gift, and hence it is equally available to anyone. You don’t need to be a spiritual superstar, of noble birth, or highly educated. Anyone can come …” (Ibid, p. 146, Kindle Locations 2573-2580)

In essence, the forgiveness of our sins and the assurance of eternal life (with God) come to us as a free gift, through our believing in Jesus and through our choosing to turn away from sin or wrongdoing—through our choosing to follow Jesus as Lord. Believing and choosing to turn away from sin are simply appropriate and right things to do in light of God’s reality and nature. (Mark 1:14-15; Luke 6:46-49; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 3:21-25; 6:23; 10:9-10; 10:12-13; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1John 1:9)

The Professor’s third reason

3. “In Christianity, You Get an Amazing Worldview Fit.” The Professor explained: “If you are trying to prioritize a group of religions in order to know which one you ought to check out first, it would be extremely helpful to know which of the religions painted a picture of the world that seemed to be a tight match with the way the world really is. … It seems reasonable to me that a thoughtful person would not want to start his religious quest with a religion that seemed to have tremendous difficulty making sense of the world we encounter … the picture Christianity paints of the world actually matches, better than any other option available, the way the world really is.” (Ibid, pp. 146-147, 150; Kindle Locations 2583-2588; 2646)

The Professor gave one example: some religions believe that suffering and evil are illusions. But the Holocaust clearly demonstrated how real and totally-terrible evil can be. Christianity agrees that evil is a terrible reality. (Cf. Ibid, pp. 147-150, Kindle Locations 2593-2646)

The Professor’s fourth reason

4. “Christianity Has Jesus at the Center.” Some may not understand why this is important; the Professor explained: “I claimed that a good reason to start with Christianity was that it had Jesus as the indisputable center point in the tradition. … Jesus is without doubt the closest thing the world has to a universal religious figure. Almost every religious tradition wants to claim Him as its own in one way or another.”

Continuing: “My comment that ‘Christianity has Jesus at the center’ is not a raw assertion of my own religious position. Rather, it is an argument that, if Jesus is such an attractive figure that the religious people of the world want to co-opt Him for their own traditions, then it makes perfect sense to give special attention to Christianity—the tradition that has Jesus firmly planted at the center and claims Jesus as its founder. This is certainly not a raw assertion of religious favoritism—just the opposite. It is another strong reason for a thoughtful person to start a religious exploration with Christianity. …”

Concluding: “Many religious perspectives want to claim Jesus as their own. … It is hard to find a major tradition or a minor movement that does not give Him a special place of honor and find a significant way to enfold Him into their system of beliefs. … Since Jesus is by any measure the only universal religious person, a figure so towering that almost every religious body has to find a way to bring Him aboard in some capacity, it makes perfect sense to me that anyone on a religious quest would know just where to start.” (Ibid, pp. 150-153, Kindle Locations 2653-2691)

Reason versus faith? Not hardly!

Some atheists claim that “faith” is believing in something apart from any evidence or reason. However, this is a mischaracterization of what faith actually is.

Evidence and reason are not opposed to faith; they can serve as a basis for faith! The following Scripture verses show that, from a biblical perspective, faith can be based on evidence and logic or reason: Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

When I was a committed and passionate atheist, I based my life on reason—that is, evidence and logic—not faith. I still base my life on evidence and logic, but now I’ve found that evidence and logic (or reason) serve as a basis for and promote a vital faith in God. (Of course, there are those who have faith instinctively, without apparently basing it on evidence or logic. The Bible does not say that this is wrong—it may be the faith mentioned in 1Corinthians 12:8-9. But I’ll speak for myself here: since, as an atheist, I wanted to base what I believed on evidence and logic, I felt a need to be sure that my newfound faith in the biblical God was similarly based on evidence and logic, and so it is.)

Every one of us has reason-based faith in something. Many of us have faith in someone’s abilities because these abilities have been consistently demonstrated. Many of us have faith that the plans we’ve made for our lives will work out or succeed because they’ve worked out or succeeded thus far. We have faith that our doctor will prescribe, and that our pharmacist will give us, helpful medicine—not poison! (Otherwise, we wouldn’t take it.)

Except, at times, for those living above the Arctic Circle or below the Antarctic Circle, every one of us has the faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning! Those of us living a significant distance from Earth’s Equator also have the faith that we will continue to experience our normal seasonal variations in weather, especially in temperature. Why do we have this faith? We’ve observed these occurrences over a sufficiently-long period of time (these observations are a form of evidence) and we reason or logically infer that they will most-probably recur or repeat as they have in the past.

Reason-based faith and instinctive faith

Thus, we have a reason for believing MUCH of what we believe. Similarly, our faith in God can be based on one or more logical reasons, which, in turn, are based on one or more objective evidences. Dr. William Lane Craig, a well-known philosopher and theologian, accordingly provided this definition: “Faith is trusting in what we have good reason to think is true. And so, the question is: Do we have good evidence for God? If we do, then we face the question: Am I going to put my trust in Him?” (This quote is from the video, “Why Should I Believe that God Exists? Ratio Christi Clemson welcomes Dr. William Lane Craig” at the 1 hour, 2-minute mark; accessed 9/21/2020.)

On the other hand, some people seem to believe or have faith instinctively, apart from any evidence or reason. While I believe that God can impart faith directly to a person’s spirit (effectively bypassing the mind; e.g. 1Corinthians 12:7-9); even so, I and many others have felt that we needed to base our faith (or trust in God) on what good evidences and reasons show to be true, and so we do. Perhaps I feel this need more-acutely because of my atheistic background.

Faith in a chair—and in God

Here’s another example: when I sit in a particular chair for the first time, I have faith that the chair will hold me up—not because my faith is blind and based on no evidence—but because my faith is based on the evidence that, every time I’ve sat in a chair, it has supported my weight. My faith is therefore based on reason, or on evidence plus logic: (1) the evidence that chairs have always supported my weight, plus (2) the logic that, because chairs have always done so, this particular chair will probably do so as well.

Thus, reason, or evidence plus logic, gives me the faith that I have for successful sitting! I have faith in or trust the chair to support my weight, and I therefore sit in it. As Dr. Craig defined it, “Faith is trusting in what we have good reason to think is true.” (Of course, ultimately, I have faith not just in a chair, but also in the chair’s manufacturer—that he or she did a good job, as most apparently do.)

Reason-based faith is therefore the faith that I have in God: today I base my faith in God’s existence and identity on many reasons, which are the conclusions of logical arguments (inferences to the best explanation) that are formulated from premises describing objective evidences, accepted as such by the majority of scholars or scientists in a given discipline or field of study.

I once was an atheist

Years ago, as an atheist, I thought that there were no evidences or reasons for God. I had been educated in secular schools and colleges, at which no teacher ever admitted the fact that there are numerous such evidences and reasons (logical arguments), supporting God’s existence! (Later, after I discovered some of these evidences and reasons, I attended a school of theology, but I didn’t become a pastor; God had something else in mind.)

As an atheist, I used to argue with Christians against God’s existence and sought to turn them into atheists! Why? I was a fairly zealous atheist at the time; I thought I was doing the right thing; I thought changing people into atheists would free them from religious restrictions. Now I see that, if we view the New Testament in a balanced way, we become motivated to do God’s will primarily because of the love with which He first loved us. Cf. John 3:16-17; 1John 4:19.

Years later, my endeavors were interrupted by a Christian who refuted my main argument for God’s non-existence (it had a false premise) and who challenged me to studyevidences for the biblical God’s existence, and then pointed me to scholarly books.I read several and became convinced that there were cogent evidences and logical arguments supporting His existence. (I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, and I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek.)

And, since I couldn’t bring myself to believe CONTRARY to the evidence—it’s only rational(or only makes sense)to believe in ACCORDANCE with the evidence—therefore, I realized that it would be more rational for me to believe rather than to disbelieve. Thus, I chose to believe—I took a step of faith—and became a Christian.

The DIFFERENCE was that, formerly, as an atheist, I didn’t see any evidence for God. Then, after careful study, I saw three potent or convincing evidences. Today I know of many, many more—at least 38 groups of evidences! Read more in my first post, here.

Does science point to God’s non-existence?

The atheists who have claimed that “faith” is believing in something apart from evidence or reason, have also claimed that science points to God’s non-existence. This is untrue in terms of the preponderance of evidence, which (as we shall see in a number of posts) points to God’s existence. In my opinion, in order for atheists to claim that science points to God’s non-existence, they must ignore innumerable evidences. Cf. https://www.reasons.org/; https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs; https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonsToBelieve1?reload=9; http://www.godandscience.org/.

Some scientists and scholars overtly support faith based on reasons and evidence

Thus, in contrast to the atheistic perspective, I very-much agree with the affirmations of Dr. Jeff Zweerink (astrophysicist) and Dr. William Lane Craig (philosopher and theologian) on the video, Is Atheism Winning the Battle for Science? (Accessed 9/19/2020)

I should specify that Dr. Zweerink made the following statement in the context of a comparison between the atheistic and the Christian worldviews. He asserted: “…if you ask the question: do the discoveries we find in studying the universe—and I’ll kind of restrict myself to physics and cosmology—do those discoveries point towards an atheistic worldview or do those discoveries point towards a theistic, Christian worldview? I would say that, when you look at the major discoveries over the last hundred years, those … fit far more comfortably in a Christian worldview than they do in an atheistic worldview. And so, at least on that sort of measure, no, atheism is not winning the battle. That doesn’t mean you can’t be an atheist and be a good scientist, but, when you look at what the data points to, it really does point to Christianity—I think strongly it points to Christianity.” (Is Atheism Winning the Battle for Science? At 35 to 36 minutes into the video.)

Dr. Hugh Ross (cf. Today’s New Reason to Believe) agrees with Dr. Zweerink (cf. Impact Events) in the fields of physics and cosmology; Dr. Fazale Rana cogently reasons that the same support for the theistic, Christian worldview exists in the discipline of biochemistry! (Cf. The Cell’s Design) Philosopher and theologian Kenneth Samples agrees with these affirmations as well, from the perspective of logical reasoning and inference. (Cf. Reflections; Best Explanation Apologetics)

There’s no conflict between reason and faith

Also, for many similar reasons (since I know his perspective very well), Dr. William Lane Craig stated on this video: “I think the best definition I’ve heard of faith is: faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true. … And there’s no conflict, in that case, between reason and faith; you have reason to think it’s true, and therefore, you put your confidence and trust in it.” (Is Atheism Winning the Battle for Science? At 18 minutes into the video; cf. Questions and Answers with Dr. William Lane Craig)

This type of reasoning for God’s existence is supported by other Christians as well, such as J. P. Moreland, Victor Reppert, Robin Collins, Paul Copan, Gregory Ganssle, Craig Keener, Craig Evans, Craig Blomberg, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, John Lennox, Stephen Meyer, Timothy and Lydia McGrew, Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, Robert Spitzer, Edward Feser, Mary Jo Sharp, Mark Foreman, Frank Turek, Kenneth Samples, Anjeanette Roberts, Michael G. Strauss, Tom Woodward, James Sinclair, Vince Vitale, Abdu Murray, Amy Orr-Ewing, J. Warner Wallace, Gregory Koukl, and Lee Strobel—among many others.

Answering questions through comments

I’m perfectly willing to answer questions addressed to me in a comment at the bottom of any page or post on this blogsite.

For example, a commenter asked me, “Tell me what your vision of heaven is. How can something be material one moment and immaterial the next? How do immaterial entities present and identify each other. How can the immaterial be seen? Your faith is based on magic.” I responded to him thusly:

“My faith isn’t based on magic; it’s based on science, logic, and cogent historical evidences. From science, I can reasonably infer that the best explanation of the universe’s beginning is the existence of a powerful Beginner having the characteristics of (at a bare minimum) a deistic God.  See the books, “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Dr. Hugh Ross (RTB Press, 2018) and “Escaping the Beginning?” By Dr. Jeff Zweerink (RTB Press, 2019) & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0&t=7s & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo. I can reasonably infer that the best explanation of the universe’s fine-tuning is a fine-Tuner or intelligent Designer having the characteristics of the theistic God (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0&t=13s & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk1pEHXnPsE&t=174s).

“From science, I also understand that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection (plus random mutations) can’t reasonably account for the wide diversity of life on Earth. See the book Darwin Devolves by Dr. Michael Behe, HarperOne, 2019 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpuog3h_tb0. While the Darwinian mechanism can account for microevolution and speciation, the intervention of an intelligent Designer is the best explanation for macroevolution, particularly for the biological classification levels higher than that of family. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hfxo7t2wBA) Dr. Behe responds to his critics and explains why his position is most reasonable in his latest book, A Mousetrap for Darwin (Discovery Institute Press, 2020).

“To answer your specific questions: something is NOT material one moment and then immaterial the next! We presently ARE immaterial entities (spirits) living inside of and connected to our physical bodies. When the body dies, our connection to it ceases and we are released from it. Many NDEs (near-death experiences) establish this, as do the teachings of Scripture; each one reinforces the other. Human spirits, apart from physical bodies, have no problem seeing and recognizing one another; see Luke 16:19-31 and the NDE books I cited in my last comment, “Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven” by J. Steve Miller (Wisdom Creek Press, 2012) and “Imagine Heaven” by John Burke (Baler Books, 2015). As best I understand it, different laws of physics apply to the spirit realm, — which is distinctly objective — some NDErs have noticed events occurring in a hospital room, for instance — events that were confirmed afterward, but the NDEr’s physical body was in another location and in cardiac arrest at the time. This is one of many examples & a number of logical proofs that NDEs are objectively real. Thanks for asking.”

Also, three short, theistically-minded videos supporting my statements above are at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEps6lzWUKk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivgQFIST1g&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=6, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM. The second video is a “Science Uprising” video. It first appears to be a video supporting a naturalistic or atheistic worldview, but it’s not … keep watching! Note: Dr. Michael Behe, biochemist, is featured in the second video. It has been alleged that he does not respond to his critics. Yet he has extensively responded, explaining why his position is a reasonable interpretation of the scientific data, in his latest book, A Mousetrap for Darwin (Discovery Institute Press, 2020).

If anyone has a sincere question about the Bible or the Christian Faith or about the evidences and reasons for God’s existence, you may ask it in the comment section that’s at the bottom of every page and post on my blogsite. If the question is asked in sincerity, I will respond.

Matters of definition and understanding

For clarification, I use the following definitions that are supported by understandable perspectives:

(1) I believe that the most-accurate definition of “atheism” is the traditional definition: “a belief that God doesn’t or probably doesn’t exist.” This is the definition I used when I was an atheist.

Less-precise definitions tend to be over-generalized. For example, some atheists think that atheism is “a lack of belief in God.” But if so, all human babies, all non-human animals, plants, rocks, dirt, bodies of water, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, galaxies, and the universe itself—are atheists! They all lack a belief in God! This is surely a case of an overly-extensive and thus overly-inclusive definition! Also, this over-definition includes agnostics (those who don’t know if God exists) in the category of atheists, while I think that the distinction between the two is important and should be preserved.

Therefore, because this “lack of belief” definition so loosely and unrealistically corresponds to reality, I choose to use the traditional definition, which, in my opinion, corresponds to reality much better.

(2) By contrast, a “Christian,” properly speaking, is someone who sincerely believes in the biblical God, of both the Old and New Testaments. (Acts 11:25-26; 16:30-34) For greater clarification: a knowledgeable Christian endeavors to love everyone because God does (John 3:16-17) and commands us to do the same. (Mk 12:28-31; Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-31)

More specifically, these verses and others (Romans 12:17-19; Galatians 5:22-23) point out that, under the New Covenant (i.e. through Jesus, Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6-12), God wants us to abstain from violence and instead wants us to love (i.e. to show tolerance, kindness, mercy, and consideration toward) every human being on Earth—even those who, at times, may be difficult to love. (Cf. Section #13 of my seventh post.) Violence is only justified in defending one’s life or the life of another. (Mk 12:28-31; Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-31; Romans 12:17-19; 13:1-3) In my opinion, clear-cut logical reasoning (based on objective evidence) is the best means to promote change; violence never is. (Acts 17:17; 18:4; 19:8; 1Peter 3:15)

(3) In my posts, I’ll also use the noun “theist” and the adjective “theistic,” referring to theism—belief in the Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made.

Logical arguments support God

Now, it’s my conviction that, if you use the opinions of the majority of astrophysicists and biochemists as premises in certain logical arguments, the conclusions of those arguments will support the intelligent design or God hypothesis—essentially, the existence of the theistic God. (Therefore, I don’t find that science detracts from God’s existence; science, objectively interpreted, supports His existence. Cf. https://www.reasons.org/; https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs; https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe; https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design; https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/impact-events; https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonsToBelieve1?reload=9; http://www.godandscience.org/)

If you use the opinions of the majority of New Testament scholars as premises, the conclusions of those arguments will support the historical reliability of the New Testament and arguably, the identity of that theistic God as the biblical God! (Cf. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/; https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections; https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg; https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos)

This reasoning is cogent

Therefore, I’m now blogging about my journey and about how evidence and logic point to God. I believe that this reasoning is cogent by means of many (over thirty) inferences to the best explanation within a cumulative case. (No knowledgeable Christian uses the obviously-fallacious “God of the gaps” reasoning.)

If more Christians were familiar with this valid method of reasoning, I believe there would be fewer atheists—the evidences are that strong or logically cogent, especially when they are cumulatively considered.

From my perspective, atheistic arguments have been soundly and thoroughly refuted, while the strongest theistic or pro-God arguments remain logically and compellingly conclusive. I’ll provide clear examples of both scenarios in my developing blog posts. (Cf. Dr. William Lane Craig’s debate videos; On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?)

From a biblical perspective

As I specified by citing the Scripture verses near the top of the page (in the section “Reason versus faith? Not hardly!”), it should be clear and unquestionable that, from a biblical perspective, faith is often based on reason; that is, on evidence and logic. This fact is seen in each of these same verses, which are individually linked to the English Standard Version at Biblegateway.com: Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

Parenthetically, as it pertains to New Testament verses in the above Scripture list: in the Greek, the verb typically rendered “believe” is derived from the noun typically rendered “faith”; they’re essentially two forms of the same word. From a New Testament perspective, belief is faith and believing is having faith—with a clear connotation of trust and reliance in the object of one’s belief or faith. The above New Testament verses, therefore, show that believing or faith can be based on reason (i.e. evidence and logic). Cf. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, University of Chicago Press, 1979; The New Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words, Thomas Nelson, 1996, Greek Dictionary, #4100 & 4102; Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Fleming H. Revell, a division of Baker Book House, 1981, #4100.

Christians will point to the well-known Scripture verse,Romans 10:17 (“…faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” NKJV). I and most Christians understand this verse to mean that faith comes by hearing truth, and this truth is God’s Word or Message; i.e. the Bible. (And, more specifically, faith in Christ comes from the Word or Message of Christ; that is, the Gospel.)  

Some Christians may therefore say, “My faith is not based on evidence and reason; it’s based on God’s Word—on what God has said.” However, in Romans 10:17, God’s Word (the Bible) IS an evidence and a reason to believe in God—particularly because of the scholarly-affirmed historical reliability of the New Testament (see section #4 in Post #8). I recommend the astute, scholarly book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg; B&H Academic, 2016. On this same topic, I also recommend the lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004). Cf. Are the Gospel narratives legendary or historically reliable?; Are there historical documentations of Jesus outside the Bible? 

Therefore, Romans 10:17 agrees with this reason-based faith concept—which really originated with the above Scripture verses. Two of these verses (Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31) demonstrated the reason-based faith concept in the time of Moses—about 1400 BC! Thus, the reason-based faith concept essentially originated with the Bible, as we know it today.

Evidence for the Bible

In this way, we can believe what the Bible says because it IS a form of evidence that’s verified by logic! Here’s one example: the Bible consists of 66 books that were written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1,500 years—yet all of these authors essentially agree on the Bible’s main message: (1) that mankind, through sinful choices, has fallen away from God; (2) that mankind needs to be brought back, forgiven, and reconciled to God; and (3) that this is accomplished through atonement for our sins, through our repentance and faith, and through His grace and forgiveness.

There’s so much agreement among the biblical authors in this respect that it logically points to a connection with, and inspiration from, God. (Christians, of course, believe that the ultimate atonement for our sins was and is the Lord Jesus Himself, according to Isaiah 53:4-11; Matthew 20:28; 26:26-28; Luke 24:46-47; John 1:19-31; 3:16-17; Romans 3:21-28; 5:6-8; Revelation 5:9.)

(The New Testament concept of grace, as in Ephesians 2:8-9, corresponds to the Old Testament concepts of God’s “lovingkindness” and His “tender mercies”—sometimes rendered “compassion”; cf. Deuteronomy 7:9; 2Samuel 9:1-11; Psalm 51:1; 69:16; 103:4; 119:77; Lamentations 3:21-25. Also, God justified Abraham through his faith in Genesis 15:1-6; cf. Romans 4:3-12.)

We can also reason thusly: if God exists, isn’t He powerful enough to have revealed His truth to different persons in the past? And isn’t He wise enough to have arranged for the truth that He has revealed to be written down and to be collected into a book, so that all of could potentially read it—and have access to His truth? Christians believe that He has done this with the Bible.

How do we know this? The Bible is strongly supported by many evidences and logical reasons, pointing in numerous ways to its historical reliability. The evidences are particularly strong or cogent for the historical reliability of the New Testament; we covered some of these in the second and third posts; we shall examine more in future posts. To study them, I recommend the scholarly book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg; B&H Academic, 2016. I also recommend the lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapters 9-14. And, once the historical reliability of the New Testamentis established, God’s part in it becomes much-more obvious. Cf. Are the Gospel narratives legendary or historically reliable?; Are there historical documentations of Jesus outside the Bible?

The early creed of First Corinthians 15

One such evidence is the early church creed found in First Corinthians 15:3-7, which affirms both Jesus’ death and resurrection. This creed does NOT possess the traits of Paul’s writing; instead, he obviously quoted it from an earlier source (earlier than when Paul wrote First Corinthians in 55 or 56 AD).

In referring to Paul’s quotation of this creed, Dr. William Lane Craig stated: “…these verses are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, just as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received and, in turn, passed on to his converts in Corinth. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem in AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Peter, Jesus’ chief disciple, and with James, Jesus’ younger brother, according to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.” (Evidence for the Resurrection, at about 7 to 8 minutes into the video. Cf. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3715; 3671-3673)

An excellent article about this creed is What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You) by Dr. Justin Bass, who points out that the evidence is clear that Christianity did NOT “develop” as a legend over many years. Virtually every New Testament scholar—regardless of theological persuasion—now believes that (1) Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person (see much more in my third post) and (2) the creedal statement in 1Corinthians 15:3-7 dates to within about five years of Jesus’ crucifixion! Cf. What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You); On Guard, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3671-3673.

In this regard, Dr. William Lane Craig stated, in referring to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White: “According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts.” (On Guard, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3084-3094) The reason for this is that, at minimum, for a legend to develop, the eyewitnesses had to have died as well as those who heard the eyewitnesses. Otherwise, too many people would still be alive who would contradict a fabricated story.

It therefore becomes obvious from the early creed (affirming the Resurrection) that Christians believed in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God from Christianity’s inception. There was virtually no time (a mere five years at most) for a legend about the Resurrection to develop; even two generations is an insufficient time for such legendary development! And, if one illogically allowed for a full 26 years (30 to 56 AD) for the creed to arise (from the crucifixion of Jesus to the writing of First Corinthians), EVEN THIS would be a woefully inadequate time for such a legend to develop! More than two generations are required! Of course, the creed likely developed much closer to 30 AD than to 56 AD, in the opinion of virtually-all scholars. Dr. William Lane Craig wrote that, “Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 quotes an old Christian tradition that he had received from the earliest disciples. Paul probably received this tradition no later than his visit to Jerusalem in AD 36 (Gal. 1:18), if not earlier in Damascus. It therefore goes back to within the first five years after Jesus’ death in AD 30.” (On Guard, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3671-3673)

The most-pertinent reasons

In light of the compelling evidence from the creed in 1Corinthians 15:3-7, here are animated videos from Reasonable Faith, containing the most-pertinent reasons for Jesus as the resurrected Son of God:

• Who did Jesus think he was?
• Did Jesus rise from the dead? Part 1: the facts
• Did Jesus rise from the dead? Part 2: the explanation

The contrast between true Christianity and “mere religion”

Since many people confuse the following two perspectives, it’s pertinent to specify some of the differences between true Christianity and what I call “mere religion.” Some people sincerely believe Christianity to be “mere religion,” but, realistically, the two should never be confused!

Balanced, biblically-based Christians (notably, from my experience, in Calvary-Chapel-type churches and, of course, in many other churches as well) proclaim and teach true Christianity (i.e. precisely what Jesus and the apostles taught, now contained in the New Testament). On the other hand, there are those who promote what I call “mere religion” (i.e. a dilution and distortion of what Jesus and the apostles taught). What are some of the differences?

• Mere religion teaches that we have to be “good enough” for God to accept us. By contrast, true Christianity teaches that God accepts us on the basis of His grace (free, unmerited favor) and our faith (with me and many others, “faith” is trusting in the evidences and reasons for God’s existence and identity)—and more specifically, our faith or trust in Christ to forgive us and to change our lives when we can’t. (1John 1:5-9) From a New Testament perspective, we can’t be “good enough” for God to accept us: He accepts us apart from good deeds or “works” (Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9) when we sincerely believe in Christ. (See my fourth post; cf. John 11:25-26; 1John 5:11-13.)

• Mere religion teaches that God is pleased by our external actions (or by our simply following rituals); true Christianity teaches that God is pleased, NOT when we try to merit His forgiveness by our good deeds or by following rituals, but when our external actions come from a heart of love for God and others, and that “We love, because He first loved us.” (1John 4:19, NASB; cf. John 3:16-17; Romans 5:6-8; 1John 4:9-11, 15)

• Mere religion focuses on our external actions—on our trying to be “good enough.” On the other hand, true Christianity focuses on our relationship with God: our fellowship with Him (1John 1:3) and His leading and guidance for us. (E.g. Acts 16:5-10)

• Mere religion condemns us when we haven’t been “good enough”; true Christianity points us to the promise that, with God’s help (thru our relationship with Him), we can overcome wrongdoing and destructive habits. (John 15:7-8; Romans 8:12-14; 1John 1:5-9; e.g. https://teenchallengeusa.org/about)

• Similarly, no mere religious system gives an individual the power to overcome the tendency to commit wrongdoing, but true Christianity does, through the relationship we have with God. (John 15:7-8; Romans 8:12-14; 1John 1:5-9; e.g. https://teenchallengeusa.org/about)

I like this quote

I like this quote from Alex McLellan because it corresponds to reality for so many logical reasons that are based on so many evidences (that I’ll gradually discuss in my posts).

He stated: “If the world is a broken jigsaw puzzle, the Bible is the picture on the box. God has given us the right guide to look at life and see the big picture.” (https://www.josh.org/alexmclellan/)

This is discussed along similar lines (the world as a jigsaw puzzle and desiring to see the picture on the box), in the lay-friendly book I keep recommending: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004.

A possible prayer

Here’s a possible prayer about one’s relationship to God, formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig. I recommend praying this prayer if it expresses your heart’s desire to know God, to do His will, and to have a relationship with Him:

“God, I really need You. I’ve wandered in darkness long enough. I’ve thought and said and done things that are wrong. I believe that You exist and that You sent Jesus to die for my sins. So right now, in the best way I know how, I commit myself to him as my Lord and Savior. Come into my life, forgive my sins, cleanse me, and make into the person you want me to be. Thank you for hearing this prayer. Amen.” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-to-do-now-that-im-convinced)

Recommended websites:

• Reasonable Faith (evidence from philosophy, science, history, & theology): https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
• Animated & other short Reasonable Faith videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos
• Longer videos by Dr. Craig: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg
• Ravi Zacharias 1 (Q&A at universities): https://www.rzim.org/listen/just-thinking
• Ravi Zacharias 2 (talks at universities): https://www.rzim.org/listen/let-my-people-think
• Ravi Zacharias’ YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia
• Reasons To Believe (evidence from science): https://www.reasons.org/ & https://reasons.org/explore/blogs
• Reflections Blog by philosopher & theologian Kenneth Samples: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections
• Reasons To Believe’s YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonsToBelieve1
• Discovery Science News YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryScienceNews
• Dr. Stephen Meyer’s YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
• Evidence for God from science: http://www.godandscience.org/
• Ratio Christi (high school/college/university): https://ratiochristi.org/
• Cold Case Christianity (a detective’s perspective): https://coldcasechristianity.com/
• Inspiring Philosophy (animated videos): https://inspiringphilosophy.org/
• Inspiring Philosophy’s YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy
• The C. S. Lewis Society & Dr. Tom Woodward: https://apologetics.org/
• I recommend and theologically agree with the teaching of Dr. Skip Heitzig, Senior Pastor of Calvary Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Christians will be interested to know that he studied under the late Chuck Smith, formerly pastor of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA. Skip holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy, Biblical and Theological Studies from Trinity Southwest University and is an Associate Professor of Pastoral and Biblical Studies at Veritas International University. His messages are balanced, informative, and edifying; his radio website and audio feed are here; his teaching library is here and also here. The “Calvary Church with Skip Heitzig” YouTube Channel is here. Videos of Skip’s distance-learning course (“The Bible from 30,000 Feet”) are here.

Contact form:

To contact me, please fill out the following form or leave a comment at the very end of a post or page.