Articles

Many critics dismiss the moral argument for God by appealing to alternative explanations for objective morality. But are mere possibilities enough to defeat a sound deductive argument? In Part 1 of this series on objections to the moral argument, we examine the key distinction between possibility and plausibility—and why skeptics must offer more than hypothetical alternatives to undermine the moral argument for the existence of God.

Discover the Transcendental Argument for God: why logic, morality, and reason require God. Rooted in reformed apologetics and Cornelius Van Til’s thought, this approach examines the foundations of truth, ethics, and reasoning, showing how unbelieving worldviews borrow from God to make sense of reality.

Some object to Christianity by saying God or some higher power cannot be understood because He or it is too far beyond our understanding. However, this is a self-defeating objection for he/she claims to understand/know something about the apparently unknowable higher power.

Thus, my response to the many comments asserting the Bible can't be used as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is that they are wrong. The historical documents contained in the Bible comprise the best-supported sources from ancient times. One is free to reject the claims of the Bible (i.e., miracles), but to assert one cannot use it as evidence for investigating historical claims it makes is baseless (not even non-Christian scholars take this position).

Scientific naturalism overlooks key aspects of reality, such as morality, meaning, and human reasoning, which Christianity better addresses.