11. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? - Part Two: The Explanation

In parts 10 and 11 we are considering the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.  If he's just another dead guy who had ideas about God, then Christianity is false and we can ignore it.  But if he really did come back from the dead, we should take Jesus very seriously and believe what he said about who he is (God) and why he came (to save people from their sins).  Trusting him could save and transform our lives and give us a real relationship with God both now and forever!!

The empty tomb of Jesus,
experiences of resurrection appearances
and the disciples' firm belief that he'd risen from the dead
are all matters of well-attested historical record that require explanation.

The next question to ask is: What is the BEST explanation for these 3 historical facts?  Is the resurrection story really more plausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations offered for the evidence we have?



Summary

1. The Conspiracy Theory says the disciples faked Jesus' resurrection by stealing and hiding his dead body and then spreading the lie that he had risen.  But...
  • Jews at that time had no concept of a rising Messiah so this plan would not have made any sense to them.
  • These disciples were willing to die for their belief that Jesus had risen.  People don't willingly allow themselves to be tortured and killed for something they KNOW to be a lie.
  • This theory does nothing to explain the numerous experiences of the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

2. The Apparent Death Theory says Jesus didn't really die on the cross but merely passed out and later revived in the tomb, escaped and convinced people he had risen.  But...
  • Romans were expert killers and knew how to make sure people were definitely dead!  Even if Jesus had managed to survive the cross (impossible), he would have died in the sealed tomb.
  • Even if he survived the cross (impossible) and the tomb (impossible), he would have had to move the stone from the entrance (which took several healthy men to move) and then take on the Roman guard to escape!
  • Even if he did all this (impossible), a tortured and half-dead Jesus would hardly be in any state to convince anyone he had risen from the dead.  Anyone who met him would see that he was in need of urgent medical attention!

3. The Displaced Body theory says that Joseph of Arimathea (whose tomb Jesus borrowed) moved Jesus' body to a criminals' graveyard and that's why the disciples found the tomb empty and believed Jesus had risen from the dead.  But...
  • Jewish laws prohibited the moving of corpses after they had been buried.
  • The criminals' graveyard was close to the site of execution, so there would have been no need to bury it somewhere else first and then move it.
  • Also, once the disciples started saying Jesus had risen, Joseph could have (and surely would have) corrected them.
  • And again, this theory does nothing to explain the numerous experiences of the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

4. The Hallucination Theory says the experiences of the appearances of Jesus alive after he died can be put down to people's minds playing tricks on them in their grief.  But...
  • Jesus appeared many times in many places, and not just to individuals but groups and to a crowd of over 500 people at once.  And to skeptics as well as believers.  This kind of mass-scale hallucination simply does not happen.
  • The jewish disciples' first thought would not have been (and wasn't) resurrection anyway because it was not part of their belief system at all.  They thought he was a ghost until he proved otherwise (Lk 24:39).
  • This theory doesn't even attempt to explain the empty tomb.

The 4 most popular naturalistic theories fail to explain the 3 historical facts we have considered.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only explanation that accounts for:
  • The empty tomb
  • The resurrection appearances
  • The disciples' willingness to die for their belief in the risen Jesus

If God exists, miracles are possible and we should not rule out this final explanation.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes).


Questions

1. Do you believe God raised Jesus from the dead?  Why or why not?

2. What do you make of the various naturalistic theories to try and explain the 3 historical facts we have been considering?  How would you explain them?

3. What are the implication for you if the resurrection really happened and Christianity is true?  What would you say to God about this?

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos

10. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? - Part One: The Facts

Jesus claimed to be God himself, coming into our world to save people from their sins so they could be forgiven and live with him forever in a world free from sickness, suffering and death!

If Jesus rose from the dead, we should take his claims seriously!  Christianity is true.

And if he didn't, he's just another dead guy with wrong ideas.  Christianity is false.

The Bible even says this:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
(1 Corinthians 15:14) 

So how strong is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead?  What do we know?

This video explores that...
Summary

 There are 3 main well-attested historical facts that require explanation:

1. The discovery of Jesus' empty tomb.
  • 6 independent early sources (Lk 24:1-12, Jn 20:1-8, 1 Cor 15:3-5, Mk 16:1-8, Mt 28:1-10, Ac 2:29-32).
  • Women discovering the tomb (likely true because a plausible hoax in that culture would have had men discovering it).
  • The Jewish authorities circulated a false story about the empty tomb.  This should also increase our confidence that there was one!
 
2. The appearances of Jesus alive after his death.
  • Paul's list of witnesses: Peter, the 12, crowd of 500+, James, the apostles, himself (1 Cor 15:3-8).
  • Various appearances are independently confirmed in the gospel accounts.
  • We can be confident that many individuals and groups had experiences of Jesus appearing to them alive after his death.

3. The disciples' belief that Jesus rose from the dead. 
  • As Jews they had no concept of a Messiah being killed and raised.
  • They would have believed Jesus was under God's curse when he died (Dt 21:22-23).
  • Yet Jesus' disciples suddenly and sincerely believed he had risen from the dead and were even willing to die for this belief.

So why was Jesus' tomb found to be empty after he had been buried in it?
Why did so many people experience appearances of Jesus alive after he died? 
Why were Jesus' disciples willing to face death for their belief that he had risen from the dead?

These are all questions for the next video, but for now, let's consider the CERTAINTY of these facts...
Questions

 1. Why should we think that the empty tomb of Jesus is a historical fact?  If this were the only known fact, what alternative explanations could be suggested?


2. Why should we think that people really did have experiences of seeing Jesus alive after he died?  If this were the only known fact, what alternative explanations could be suggested?

3. Why is it curious that the Jewish disciples of Jesus suddenly and sincerely believed he had risen from the dead?  How do we know they were sincere?

4. Why do these 3 historical facts require explanation?  And what possible explanations are there?

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 11. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? - Part 2: The Explanation

9. Who Did Jesus Think He Was?

Jesus, splits history in half (BC/AD).  2000 years after his death, nearly a third of the world claim to be Christians.  More books have been written about him, more songs sung to him, more paintings painted of him than anyone else in human history.

Who is he?  

Nearly everyone believes SOMETHING about Jesus.  He's in all the major religions too.  He's simply too big a deal to ignore.  But only Christians believe he is God.

Did Jesus actually make this claim?

You might say, "So what if he did?  Doesn't mean it's true!"  But although others have claimed to be God, they all tend to be dangerous cult leaders or those who are deluded or mentally unwell.  None of them (or anyone else ever), have impacted the world like Jesus. 

So we should be curious about what Jesus actually said about himself.

This video is about that...



Summary

The vast majority of modern historians, both Christian and non, are convinced that Jesus certainly existed and that his life and words can be investigated historically, just as we would with other ancient figures such as Plato, Aristotle, or Alexander the Great.

Historians, both Christian and non, treat the New Testament records as an ordinary collection of ancient documents to determine the life and words of Jesus.  Here is what they find...

1. Jesus claimed to be THE MESSIAH.  By riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (an event attested to by independent sources), Jesus was decisively and provocatively claiming to be: The Victorious King, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Anointed One, Righteous, Bringing Salvation, Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, described in the ancient Jewish scriptures.

2. Jesus claimed to be THE SON OF GOD.  His parable of the vineyard shows clearly that he thought of himself as the only Son of God, God's final messenger, not simply another of the prophets, and the heir of Israel.

3. Jesus claimed to be THE SON OF MAN.  Jesus refers to himself this way over 80 times in the gospels.  It's a clear reference to the "son of man" in an ancient Jewish prophecy in the book of Daniel.  One who ultimately rules over everything and everyone (Daniel 7:13-14).

With these three titles (and in many other ways), Jesus clearly claimed to be the very God his accusers worshiped...


The majority of modern historians, Christian and non, are agreed that the historical Jesus...
  • Claimed to be God and was accused of "blasphemy", because the Jewish leaders rejected this.
  • Claimed to have divine power to heal the sick, drive out demons, revise the Jewish law, and forgive sins.
  • Claimed that people's eternal destinies hinged on whether or not they believed in him.
Jesus' self-understanding cannot be reduced to that of a Jewish teacher or a charismatic leader.  He was claiming repeatedly and emphatically that he was and is God himself.


Questions

1. Are you surprised by the fact that most modern historians, Christian and non, are confident, not only of Jesus' existence but also quite a bit about what he said and did? 

2. Are you surprised that Jesus claimed to be God?  Why or why not?

3. How could Jesus be SOMETHING GOOD but NOT GOD if he was someone who kept claiming to be God?  Why would someone who is a good person but not God, keep insisting they are God until they were killed for this claim?

4. Why do you think he's had such a huge impact on the world?  Who do you think Jesus really is?

5. What if it's true that God has shown up in human history so that we might really know him?  If it's actually true, what would you say to God about this?

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 10. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? - Part 1: The Facts

8. Suffering and Evil: The Probability Version

In the previous video we saw that the existence of suffering and evil doesn't logically rule out the possible existence of God.

It's possible there is a God who has perfectly good reasons beyond our current understanding for allowing the suffering and evil we see in the world.

But is it likely that such a God exists?  Or should we think that the existence of suffering and evil means there's probably no God?

This video deals with that idea...



Summary

"Suffering provides empirical evidence that the existence of God is highly unlikely."

But...
  1. We are not in a position to say that God probably lacks good reasons for allowing suffering and evil.  We are limited in space and time, intelligence and insight whereas God knows everything from beginning to end.

  2. Relative to the full scope of evidence, God's existence may well be probable.  The probability of God's existence may well increase if we consider more information than simply the existence of evil and suffering.

  3. The Christian worldview entails beliefs that increase the probability of the existence of suffering and evil as well as God (see below).  If Christianity is true, it's not at all improbable that suffering and evil should exist.
  • The main purpose of life is not happiness but rather to know God and that this alone brings true and lasting fulfillment (better than mere 'happiness').  Suffering can help people know something is wrong with the world and that they need to know God.
  • People are in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.  Human beings are capable of terrible evil acts that demonstrate this.  Christians aren't surprised at moral evils in the world.  They expect it. 
  • God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life.  Christians can say, "Our pain in this life will not endure forever but our lives with God WILL!"
  • The knowledge of God is an incomparable good.  Relationship with God is the ultimate human fulfillment.  So even on their worst days of suffering, a Christian can say, "God is good to me."

So the intellectual arguments from the existence of suffering and evil, ultimately fail to disprove God's existence.


Questions

1. What's your view of God? 

If he ACTUALLY exists, do you think (like Stephen Fry) that you would get to stand and judge him, tell him off or tell him he owes you better?

Or is your thinking more like a guy I met once who said, "I'm not sure I want to meet God because I'd expect him to be so awesome that my face would melt or I'd explode because I'm so tiny and sinful compared to him."?

Which of these two views of God do you identify with most?  And why?

2. If God ACTUALLY exists, do you think he knows FAR more than we do about everything?  If not, why call him God?  But if so, why should anyone be certain he probably wouldn't create a world in which suffering and evil came to exist?  If he exists, isn't it INEVITABLE that he has perfectly good reasons beyond our current understanding for allowing the suffering and evil we see in the world?

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:9)

3. What other kinds of evidence should we consider that might increase the probability of God's existence?  What kind of evidence do you think makes the existence of God more believable? 



4. How does the Christian worldview (and the 4 doctrines the video describes) make sense of the suffering and evil that exist in our world as it is now? 

5. Why do you think it is that countries that have endured the most hardship often show the highest growth rates for Christianity?  Why should they find the Christian worldview compelling?



6. "Not only does God exist, but he loves you, he seeks after you, he offers you hope.  And in time he will make all things new."  Stop and think.  "What are the implications for me IF THIS IS TRUE?"

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling-place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death” or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’
(Revelation 21:3-4) 

7. Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem

If God is good and loves us and is all powerful, then how can there be suffering and evil in the world?

It's perhaps THE big question that gets asked most often by people who aren't convinced God exists.  At least it's a question that gets asked a lot in relatively rich western countries.  (THAT should make us think!)

How can God and evil both exist?  This video gets into it...



Summary

The logical problem of suffering argues:

Premise 1. It is impossible for God and suffering to both exist.
Premise 2. Suffering exists.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not.

But premise 1 contains 2 hidden assumptions:

ASSUMPTION 1. If God is all-powerful, he can create ANY WORLD HE WANTS.

But God can't FORCE people to FREELY CHOOSE what he wants.  That would be logically incoherent.

ASSUMPTION 2. If God is all-loving, HE PREFERS A WORLD WITHOUT SUFFERING.

But how could we possibly know this?  Isn't it possible God might allow suffering to achieve a greater good?

The logical argument fails to show that it's logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist.


Questions

1. For the logical problem of suffering to succeed, the atheist would have to show that:

It's logically impossible that free will exists
AND
It's logically impossible for God to have good reasons to allow suffering

Do you agree?   If not, how else could the logical problem of suffering work???

2. Do you think it's possible there is a God who has perfectly good reasons beyond our current understanding for allowing the suffering and evil we see in the world?

If YES - then you already know the logical problem of suffering doesn't work.

If NO - Why do you think that God (if he existed) couldn't possibly know more than you?  Have you misunderstood the word "God"?  Or do you really think you have perfect knowledge?

3. Why do think prominent atheist philosophers have given up on the logical problem of evil?

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 8. Suffering and Evil: The Probability Version 

6. The Ontological Argument

Ok, this one is an argument that I find slightly more convoluted, but if you're happy to jump inside a philosophical thought experiment for a moment, it does make very good sense. 

In 1078, a Christian monk from Canterbury called Anselm argued that:

"If God POSSIBLY exists, then God ACTUALLY exists."

Really?

Actually, as with all good philosophy, I think this argument has some common sense thinking in it that is fairly intuitive when you stop to think about it.

So hang in there!  The video unpacks it for us...



Summary

This argument is mainly about the essential nature or definition of God.  God by definition is a "Maximally Great Being", (nothing greater than God) and is ESSENTIALLY:

ALL-POWERFUL
ALL-KNOWING
MORALLY PERFECT
IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD
(ways the world could have been)

So if we're talking about something that fails to be one of these things, then we're not talking about "God" any more, by definition, but rather, something less than God.

If God exists in ANY possible world (ways the world could have been), then he exists in EVERY possible world, including the ACTUAL world.

If this argument is sound, the atheist would have to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE that God exists, because the concept of God isn’t logically incoherent or self-contradictory (like a square circle).

It's a little bit like saying that God, by definition, cannot NOT exist!


Questions

1. Do you think it's at least logically POSSIBLE that God exists?  God being:

ALL-POWERFUL (nothing more powerful)
ALL-KNOWING (nothing unknown to him)
MORALLY PERFECT (nothing morally superior)
IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD (no world where he could not exist)

Is God an intuitively coherent idea (unlike a square circle or a married bachelor)?

If so, this argument says that God ACTUALLY exists.  What do you make of this logic?

2. Have a look at the summary of the argument below.  How strong do you think the argument is?  Do you think it falls down at any point and if so, where?


3. If the notion of God (as described in this argument) is intuitively coherent and God possibly exists, then it follows that he cannot fail to exist (or he would not be God).  In other words: God essentially exists!  And if anyone says he doesn't, they're talking about something less than God.

Agree or disagree?  Why?

OK, thought experiment over!  Well done!  :)

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 7. Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem

5. The Moral Argument

How do we know right from wrong?  Especially when people disagree about right and wrong?

Parents often say something similar when their kids complain that all their friends are doing something they're not allowed to do: "Just because they're doing it, doesn't make it right!"

St Augustine (very clever ancient Christian dude) said, "Right is still right even if no-one is doing it.  Wrong is still wrong even if everyone is doing it."

Was he right?

Or wrong?

And how do you KNOW?

This video is about that!



Summary

The moral argument for the existence of God can be summarised as follows...

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties DO exist.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

"God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values."

 "If there's no God, there's no objective reference point.  All we are left with is one person's viewpoint, which is no more valid than anyone else's viewpoint."

 "Atheism fails to provide a foundation for the moral reality every one of us experiences every day.  The existence of morality points us directly to the existence of God."


Questions

1. Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist, (affirming the 1st premise), said that in a world without God, "...there can be no evil and no good... nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

 Do you agree?  Why, or why not? 

2. "Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real."

Do you agree?  Why, or why not?

And if not, the implication (by definition) is that you're affirming subjective morality (the kind that changes from person-to-person, has no objective basis and is not binding on anyone else).  So...

3. Are child abuse, racism and terrorism morally wrong for all people in all places at all times?  Or is it down to personal preference or opinion?

If they're absolutely wrong, on what basis are they absolutely wrong?

If they are not, is Dawkins right in question 1 and how is it even possible to live a truly "good" life and not simply the life you personally prefer?  And what would you say to the person who prefers to live a selfish, greedy life at the expense of other people and says, "Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?"

4. Can you be good without God?  Why/why not?

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 6. The Ontological Argument

4. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Fred Hoyle was an atheist astrophysicist and cosmologist.  Despite not believing in God, he said our universe is so precisely tuned for life that it looks like "...a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...", and that "...there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature..."

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelyhood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials..."  And he compared the probability of obtaining even a single protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously.

What are the chances of our universe being so well adjusted for us to live in it?



Summary

This video highlights the various constants and quantities that determine the structure of our universe.  These numbers are finely tuned within an infinitesimally small life-permitting range.  If just one of these constants were slightly different, there would be no stars, planets or life anywhere at all.

Atheist and physicist David Deutsch said,

"If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand.  These special features are surprising and unlikely."

What is the best explanation of this incredible reality we enjoy every day?  We have 3 live options...

- NECESSITY: The universe MUST be finely tuned and life-prohibiting universes are impossible.
- CHANCE: We just got really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really lucky!
- DESIGN: It was done on purpose by an intelligent, powerful Creator.

The first one is false because life-prohibiting universes aren't impossible - they're actually a lot more likely.

The second is false because the chances are so extremely small.  So people dial up the odds by suggesting there could be a multiverse - like a bubblebath of universes - many without life and a few like ours that do have life.  But:
- There's no evidence for this
- Whatever generated these universes must itself be finely-tuned
- Laws of probability mean that you would find patches of simple life scattered within some of the universes and not an entire universe like ours which is so finely tuned throughout to make life possible.

This leaves the third possibility.  The reason our universe has the appearance of design... is because it was designed!  Created by God.  The most obvious answer is sometimes the right one.  And when we compare it to the alternatives in this case, it certainly seems to be the most plausible explanation.


Questions

1. Why do you think it is that our universe is so finely tuned in so many ways, so that if just one of these constants were a tiny bit different, there would be no stars, no planets and no life?

Or to ask it another way...

The atheist scientist Stephen Hawking said, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."  What or who could possibly be responsible for this "remarkable fine-tuning"?

2. Which of the three explanations do you find most plausible?  And why?  What do you make of the objections to the first two?

3. Do you think it's possible our universe has the appearance of design because it's been designed?  Why or why not?

 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
  the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
  night after night they reveal knowledge.

 Psalm 19:1-2

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 5. The Moral Argument

3. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The comedian Frank Skinner said...

I have friends who are atheists. There’s this mate of mine. He says, ‘It’s such rubbish. Come back to my flat and I’ll make a cup of tea and we’ll talk the whole thing through.’ So I go back with him and he puts the kettle on. ‘The thing is, Frank, the universe – it just happened. A big bang, an accident, no one made it happen. There’s no great designer, no thought went into it or planning, it just happened – do you get it? … Anyway, that cup of tea won’t make itself.’

I said, ‘Why not?’

What does it mean that our universe has a beginning?

 

Summary

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.

And logically (because of what it caused to begin), we can say that this cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and immeasurably powerful.
 
This argument doesn't conclude that God exists (much less that the Christian God exists), but simply that there must be a cause with these qualities. 

I would add - If it's not God, it's something an awfully lot like him!!


Questions

1. If the conclusion of this argument is false, what's the alternative?  How could our universe have come into existence UNCAUSED?  Try answering that question without describing a CAUSE.  It can't be done!

2. Some people say, "Quantum Physics has particles that spring into existence uncaused", but how can this really be "uncaused" if:
a) ...it's happening within the space-time universe where there's already space, time, matter and energy all over the place?
b) ..it's happening in a way that's repeatable by scientists setting up the experiments where these things happen?

If it's impossible to get something from nothing, then it's also impossible to get nothing now that there's something!  In other words, how could we ever genuinely recreate the initial conditions of the universe at its beginning now that it's here?  It's logically impossible!

3. Some people say, "Then who caused God?"  But we know that our universe had a definite beginning in the finite past.  That's why we're having this discussion in the first place.  The point is, the first thing that began to exist must have a cause that didn't!  How could anything have EVER existed unless there was something that ALWAYS existed?

4. Some people say, "This is a God of the gaps argument" and they'd rather say, "We just don't know what the cause was."  But this admits there IS a cause.  And besides, it's not an argument based on what we DON'T know but on what we DO know!  We DO know our space-time universe had a definite beginning in the finite past.  Try question 1 again!

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 4. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

2. Leibniz's Contingency Argument

Ever wondered why anything exists?  Gottfried Leibniz, a German philosopher who lived over 300 years ago, said one of the most important questions human beings ask is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  He said the answer to this is ultimately found in God...



Summary

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The explanation of the universe's existence is God.

"The only adequate explanation for the existence of a contingent universe is that its existence rests on a non-contingent being - something that cannot not exist because of the necessity of its own nature."


Questions

1. If it were enough to simply say, "the universe exists and that's that", why do people everywhere intuitively wonder about the reason it exists... and why shouldn't they?

2. Do you understand and agree with the distinction between:
  • Things that exist contingently (because they are caused by something else - they don't have to exist) and... 
  • Things that exist necessarily (by necessity of their own nature - they cannot not exist)?  
And why or why not?

3. "It's logically possible that this universe might not have existed", but the same cannot be said of God.  Why not?

4. Is it reasonable to call the explanation of the universe "God"?  Or do you prefer, "The extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, who created the entire universe and everything in it"???

Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 3. The Kalam Cosmological Argument 

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)