Debate: William Lane Craig vs. Alex Rosenberg - Is Faith in God Reasonable?

This is the full video of last nights debate... give it a view and let me know who you think won.

(Spolier alert: All three judging bodies (the internet, 6 on site judges and the audience) overwhelmingly feel Craig won this debate)

The Decline of Christian Europe

INTRODUCTION

            The influence of Christianity in Europe is hard to deny. With its beautiful monasteries, cathedrals and religious history European culture is surrounded by memories of a past lifetime and pious society. Yet things have changed in the last generation or so rapidly towards a post-Christian Europe. But what has caused this dramatic shift away from veneration, reverence and adoration for God?

            In this essay I intend to explore four causes that have lent themselves to the decline of Christianity in Europe. First we will look into the influence of the Enlightenment, particularly at the work of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Next we shall delve into the idea of syncretism and how this has shaped the religious milieu of the continent. Next we will survey the changing social and family structure particularly the size of families and the role of inheritance in strategic powers of Europe chiefly Germany. Finally we will briefly cover the influences of the “New Atheist” and how this is shaping the landscape of European morality and life.

The Influx of Reason[1]

            Christianity in the eighteenth century began to face some new challenges that would rock the landscape of European thought. Beginning in the late seventeenth century the rationalist, those whose attitudes could be typified by an interest in the world and conviction in the strength of reason, began to influence the way people in Europe thought and how they came to an epistemic stance.[2] However following the initial rationalist incursion came a bright skeptic of the rationalist position.

David Hume employed his own method of experience and knowledge that shaped the thoughts of his day. Truth, as Hume saw it, is not that we see an apple, rather that we perceive its attributes such as size, color, flavor and so on.[3] Hume also struck at the core of Christian belief by asserting that belief in God, most notably the Christian God, is not something that comes from a pure love of the truth but rather out of an anxiety, a desire for joy, pleasure or a fear of death.[4] Naturally this sort of “experience skepticism” could have a profound impact on any who would read his work, and at this time with the aid of the printing press, was easier to access than ever.

Following Hume came, considered by many one the most notable philosophers of all time, Immanuel Kant. Kant, who had been awakened from his “dogmatic slumber” by reviewing the work of Hume, expounded upon this idea of reasonable knowledge in his work Critique of Pure Reason.[5] Kant makes a distinction in this work between phenomenon that are spatiotemporal objects, and noumena which are neither spatial nor temporal, thus these two worlds are separate.[6] God falls into the realm of noumena that Kant claims we cannot have intuition nor experience of. This means we can’t even begin to have knowledge of God let alone be able to describe his attributes.

Though claims made by Kant and Hume are not certain facts, what is certain is that their thoughts still impact an ever increasingly secular Europe. This impact thus requires a response from philosophers and theologians in the defense of knowledge and God to help turn the cultural tides back in the favor of theism.

Syncretism: The Harmful Ecumenical Movement

            When a culture that is largely dominated by one religion, as was the case in Europe’s past, encounters other religious traditions or sees an influx of foreign people to their lands change is inevitable. In this instance, the change we are speaking of is that of syncretism. Syncretism is the idea that as new influences on society are introduced, most principally religious views of immigrating peoples, they begin to borrow and adapt traits from one another until you have a religion that is not what the founders would have intended it. For example, if you have a stream of Hindus in England you may find the Anglican Church laity adapting the same respect of cows as do the Hindus and thus a blending of cultures would have taken place.

            Certainly there are good things that can come from blending of cultures such as the sharing of spices or the advancement of technologies not seen in the existing population. However, when you begin to allow other cultures, particularly religious cultures, into a society dominated by one sect it is likely things will shift and a decline of the dominant faith can be expected. Nonetheless, the case in Europe is a bit more troubling for Christians. It has been recognized that cultures and religions, particularly Islam, who had no defined historical heritage in Europe are now being integrated into the continent with a certain degree of success.[7] This success is at the expense of Christianity and the reaction to regain the landscape in Europe for Christians has been ineffective.

A Cultural Identity and the Shrinking Family

            Another of the main issues in the decline of Christian Europe is the changing social structure of religion. In times past the religion of the home, in this case Christianity, was passed on from father to son and so on. This in no way ensured the salvation of the son, however the cultural trait of sharing the family’s faith was a major part of the development of the church as a whole. If your parents were Christian there was a greater probability that you too would hold this same religious affiliation. According to Hans Joas, there is a decline in the practice of handing down faith within families, although he notes the effectiveness of highly religious families to succeed in this practices, nonetheless the actual population of such highly religious groups is also shrinking.[8]

            In addition to the lessening impact of family religious heritage in Christian Europe, there is also another trend that may be affecting this transmission of faith. The average size of European families are shrinking and most notably since the turn of the millennium. The birth rate in Germany for example has been in sharp decline since 2000 and though it has recovered somewhat in 2010 and 2011 the recovery is still far short of the birthrate a decade previous.[9]  What all of this is telling us is when you combine a falling birth rate with a declining tendency towards families to pass on their Christian heritage the end result is a decline in the overall cultural impact and population of Christian believers.

            A last point on the culture of Christians in decline, it may appear that some numbers do not actually show the results of Christianity declining, however this may be explained when you look at the cultural identity of Europeans. It has been a joke for sometime that atheists in Northern Ireland are identified with Christianity; they are either Catholic or Protestant Atheist.[10] This cultural tag allows some to be lulled into thinking Christianity is alive and well in Europe but the post-modern culture screams otherwise.

The New Atheists

            Since 9-11 and the rise of Islamaphobia in the West there has been a revival of atheism. However this is not the atheism of yesteryear, that of Bertrand Russell and even Antony Flew (the author is aware that Flew has recently accepted theism). This type of atheist, lead by the four horsemen Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, are a more belligerent type of atheist one who is bent on attacking Christianity in the private sphere. Their arguments are typically recycled rhetoric from the past and they dismiss many claims from professional Christian philosophers with an uniformed bravado. However their audience, who are less concerned with scholarship and more concerned with one living their own life of cultural and moral relativity, have latched on to such elementary arguments in support of their position.

            In order to gain a respectable footing Dawkins for instance espouses his own form of a moral ethic. In his work The God Delusion he declares that compassion and generosity are “noble emotions.”[11] He rails against the doctrine of original sin claiming it to be “morally obnoxious” and Dawkins even goes so far as to declare his own Ten Commandments.[12]

All of these efforts to show that one does not have to hold to theism, particularly Christian theism, in order to live a fulfilled and morally ethical life. This type of atheism is becoming more and more attractive to a culture that has fallen asleep at the wheel in reference to the piety of their past. This is yet another reason for the decline of Christendom in the once robust European social structure.

CONCLUSION

            From the various influences on the culture in Europe the trend towards a decline in Christianity is unmistaken. The Enlightenment thinkers who placed doubt on experience and knowledge rocked the very core of thought for centuries to come. As thoughts were beginning to grow so to was the culture of syncretism in Europe which helped to drown out the Christian culture. Contributing to the cultural changes were the downslide in birth rates and the influence of families on their children to carry the torch of Christianity to the next generation. Lastly the New Atheist with their rhetoric and attempt at ethical living in the face of a relativist milieu has gained quite more than just a cult following. The thoughts, habits and traditions of Europe are shifting farther and farther from the heritage that was once steeped in piety. As the secularization of Europe continues one cannot help but ponder when the final sun will go down on Christianity in the continent that saw its largest growth.

  

Bibliography

Allievi, Stefano. Reactive Identities and Islamophobia: Muslim minorities and the challenge of religious pluralism in Europe. Philosophy & Social Criticism 38, No. 4-5 (2012): 379-87. http://ps.sagepub.com/content/38/4-5/379 (accessed July 9, 2012).

Craig, William Lane. “Richard Dawkins on Arguments for God.” In God is Great, God is Good: Why Belief in God is Reasonable and Responsible, edited by William Lane Craig & Chad Meister 13-31. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009.

Demerath, N.J. III. The Rise of “Cultural Religion” in European Christianity: Learning from Poland, Northern Ireland and Sweden. Social Compass 2000 47, No. 1 (March 2000): 127-39. http://scp.sagepub.com/content/47/1/127 (accessed July 12, 2012).

Gonzalez, Justo L. “The Story of Christianity Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation.” (New York: Harper One, 2010).

Joas, Hans. The Future of Christianity. The Hedgehog Review 13, No. 1 (Spring 2011): 75-82. Academic OneFile. Web (accessed July 9, 2012).

Mundi, Index. “German Birth Rate 2000 to 2011.” http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=25 (accessed July 14, 2012).

Plantinga, Alvin. “Warranted Christian Belief.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

---

[1] The title of this section is not to imply that Christianity is devoid of reason but rather to point to the historical time in which the foundation of reason was challenged and took center stage

[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, “The Story of Christianity Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation” (New York: Harper One, 2010), 238.

[3] Ibid., 244.

[4] Alvin Plantinga, “Warranted Christian Belief” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 143.

[5] Gonzalez, 246.

[6] Plantinga, 11.

[7] Stefano Allievi, Reactive Identities and Islamophobia: Muslim Minorities and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism in Europe, Philosophy & Social Criticism 38, No. 4-5 (2012): 380, http://ps.sagepub.com/content/38/4-5/379 (accessed July 9, 2012).

[8] Hans Joas, The Future of Christianity, The Hedgehog Review 13, No. 1 (Spring 2011): 76, (accessed July 9, 2012).

[9] In Germany a birth rate of 9.35 (births/1,000 population) in 2000 was in sharp decline to 8.18 in 2009. This is a reduction of 12.5% in just nine years. Index Mundi, “German Birth Rate 2000 to 2011,” http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=25 (accessed July 14, 2012).

[10] N.J. Demerath III, The Rise of “Cultural Religion” in European Christianity: Learning from Poland, Northern Ireland and Sweden, Social Compass 2000 47, No. 1 (March 2000): 131, http://scp.sagepub.com/content/47/1/127 (accessed July 12, 2012).

[11] William Lane Craig, “Richard Dawkins on Arguments for God,” in God is Great, God is Good: Why Belief in God is Reasonable and Responsible, ed. William Lane Craig & Chad Meister (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 19.

[12] Ibid.

Philosophy Friday - Reasonable Faith

"It is sometime claimed that faith and reason are hostile to each other, and whatever is of reason cannot be of faith. But this represents misunderstanding of the biblical concept of faith. The biblical notion of faith emphasizes personal trust (fiducia) or belief in God and the data/content of his revelation (noticia). But belief in rests on belief that. One is called to trust in what he or she has reason to give intellectual assent (assensus) to. In Scripture, faith involves placing trust in what you have reason to believe is true. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the dark. So faith and reason cooperate on a biblical view of faith. They are not intrinsically hostile."


J.P. Moreland, "Philosophy." in Opening the American Mind, ed. W. David Beck, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 47-66.

Short Essay on the Problem of Evil

Sin no mater the degree or function has been a concern of man since the dawn of time. Whether in the form of moral evil or its associate natural evil the basis for the problem of evil is realized.

The problem of evil is both a question of logical consistency in propositions of a theological system and more chiefly it’s a string of problems that encompass God and evil.[1] Biblically the book of Job details the problem of evil and other places in Scripture give account of evil by suffering in the face of doing good (1 Pet. 3:13-14). Plato took up this problem in his work Euthyphro, which outlines questions that relate to the cause of this problem. Plato however missed the mark here; the answer to his dilemma should be stated, God wills the good because He is good.[2] God as a holy can have no part in evil thus cannot be the cause of evil (Jas. 1:13).

Among the definitions of evil two classes exist, moral and natural evil. Moral evil is evil that is the product of moral agents; the first murder by Cain (Gen. 4:8), Uriah’s assassination by David (2 Sam. 11:14-17). Natural evil is that problem which arises as a result of natural processes such as earthquakes, or tsunami’s. Each problem must be addressed using different arguments and approaches. For example one cannot hope to answer the suffering of a cancer patient by appealing to free will.[3]

Tackling the issue of why sin exists is important in addressing the problem of evil. Prior to the fall in Genesis 3, the world was made whole and unblemished (Gen. 1:31). Adam and Eve existed in an unabated relationship with the creator of the universe. Subsequent to the fall both moral and natural evils became prevalent. God as the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. According to Leibniz, out of the many possible worlds that were feasible for God to actualize he chose the one we experience to actualize which was the best possible world. In order for man not to be an automaton God had to endow his creation with free will. If he offers free will then he cannot limit the influence of evil in the world. This would be a direct inconsistency with free will. However, because of God’s providence he can use evil to ultimately bring about good in the world, namely the saving work of Christ at Calvary.[4] John Hick espoused that God’s intent was not to create perfect creatures rather he sought to create beings in need of development towards perfection. [5] However this view errs because the use of evil in the world seems to turn people away from God and not the opposite.

When developing a theodicy it is extremely important to ensure it is internally consistent. If God is all loving and omnipotent and evil exists the theodicist must show that there is no inconsistency with these claims. Is it inconsistent for God to allow evil? Certainly not, what would be inconsistent is for a God, who allows the free will decisions of moral agents, to restrict the decisions of free creatures to ensure no evil can arise. This as stated previously would be inconsistent with the idea of free will making the theodicy internally inconsistent. In my view, God actualized the best possible world. Since God is the only Metaphysically necessary being he alone can will the world into existence.[6] Though evil exists it does not raise an issue of inconsistency in this theodicy because it can be shown that people (agents who propagate evil by free will decisions) are certainly less perfect than a necessary being because their existence is contingent on that being. Thus evil is consistent with God creating man.

Personal experience can both lend to and hinder one’s relationship with God. When a person experiences evil in their life they make ask the question, “why me God?” This can cause a rift in the relationship the person assumed they had with God. However if the person would spend time in the Scriptures stories would inspire the downtrodden. Joseph described evil used for good by God (Gen. 50:20). David found refuge in God during trials (Ps. 18:6). A person seeking to dispute a belief about God can only do so if the theodicy accurately portrays God.[7] Because theodicies are constructs of human thought it is possible to deny a theodicy without actually denying an attribute or the existence of God.

Though the problem of evil will certainly not go away anytime soon the theodicist can be confident that if their view is consistent it can be used to explain one’s view of God. This may offer hope for others aspiring to defend God in a logically consistent way.

Word count: #799

Bibliography

Feinberg, J. S., “Evil, Problem of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 413-15. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

Feinberg, J. S., “Theodicy.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 1184-87. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

Lewis, G. R., “God, Attributes of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 492-99. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

---

[1]             J.S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 413.

[2]             G.R. Lewis, “God, Attributes of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 496.

[3]             Feinberg, 414.

[4]             J.S. Feinberg, “Theodicy.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1186.

[5]             Feinberg, 1186.

[6]             Feinberg, 1185.

[7]             Ibid, 1187.

Sunday Statement: "Don't Lump Me in With the Bunch!"

Now that the failed Rapture predictions for May 21, 2011 of resident charlatan Harold Camping of Family Radio have been realized I want to offer a special request of all atheists out there...

Please don't lump me in with people you assume to be followers of Jesus.

I mean people like Jim Jones, Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn or any other loon you might associate with evangelicalism. I do not appreciate being judged in such a manner. I am a Christ-following man, and that is for sure but people like this can ruin the impression non-believers have of all of us. This prejudice is unwarranted and I ask that you forget impostors like this and move on with the respectful debates Christians and atheists should be engaged in.

I think you wouldn't like it if I wrapped you in the list of famous atheist particularly the ones who caused serious destruction and death on a massive scale. You know guys like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and others who epitomized the word dastardly.

I won't lump you in with those nut cases so please don't lump me or any other Christian in with those claiming some special revealtion from God. These people are well outside of mainline Christianity and most Christians you meet do not fit the profile of these loons.

Thank you for respecting my wishes, now lets get back to something more interesting...

Does God Exist? 

Relativism with Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith: Part 2

Here is part two of a video I posted last week. I like the way Koukl points to the problem of evil as a proof that there is a transcendent standard of morality, which follows that God exists. God seems to be the most coherent answer to the problem of evil. Hope you enjoy.

The Moral Argument from our 5 senses

Here is an addition to the Moral Argument in reference to skepticism about our five senses (touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing) and skepticism about our moral sense (Justice, Greed and etc.). This is in objection to the stance of Atheistic Moral Platonism.

Moral Sense:

1.     If a moral sense can exist necessarily without persons, then God does not exist

2.     Moral senses cannot exist necessarily without persons.

3.     Therefore, God exists.

Five Senses:

1.     If our five senses can exist necessarily without persons, then God does not exist.

2.     Our five senses cannot exist necessarily without persons.

3.     Therefore, God exists.

The ultimate question is, are these two arguments and there conclusions more plausible than their denials?

If you think about Justice as a moral sense, can Justice itself be Just? Of course not! Justice is merely a distinction of persons. It requires a person to be Just to deliver Justice. But Justice cannot by itself be just, for if it could then other senses such as love, greed and so forth would be independent entities embodying some sort of physical-metaphysical body which is an absurdity. Therefore moral senses require persons in which to exist.

Think next about our 5 senses. Can touch do anything without a hand or a body? Can taste do anything without a mouth or a liquid or food? It is true that senses cannot exist necessarily out of their own nature because without persons the five senses simply do not exist.

We could say, "well obviously this is true because I didn’t hang out with taste today" or "I didn’t go on a run with greed earlier", but the question remains is the existence of moral sense and the five senses more plausible based on Atheistic Naturalism or on Theism? Can the natural evolution of species account for the moral sense of justice? Did these things merely evolve simultaneously to meet together in the form of Homo sapiens? According to William Lane Craig, he sees William Sorley answer this question thusly, 

“it is far more plausible to regard both the natural realm and the moral realm under the hegemony of a divine Creator and Lawgiver than to think that these two entirely independent orders of reality just happened to mesh.”[1]

---

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 179.

Absolutes and Faith?

What if the Bible were 100% accurate or true in the regard to all physical reality? What would this do to the idea of Faith?

Wolfthart Panneberg basically said that the basis for faith in Christianity could be found in the reliability of the historical Christianity itself. Basically truth can be known plausibly with the facts of the past or within history.

This got me to thinking about the following, what if the Bible and its facts were 100% true in all known physical reality, would it remove faith altogether? What faith does it take to believe in something that is an absolute, at least physically speaking?

In this case it would seem that absolutes would nullify the concept of faith altogether.

In reference to scripture, this is not to say that scripture cannot be inerrant, but it must take into account both physical and spiritual realities to be fully inerrant.

If scripture were only spiritually true then that too would nullify our necessity for faith and belief because it (scripture) would simply become incomprehensible as a whole. How could we perceive fully of something we cannot experience temporally.

It would seem the bottom line point would be this: Some things can be explained in regards to the scripture physically, some spiritually and some by both, but they cannot be explained 100% of the time in both realities of understanding, otherwise we would become as God, knowing and understanding all things or better said we would be omniscient.

The statement and thought that God is good (in particular, always good) can be misunderstood if you merely think of God as being good in physical reality. This can take away from the truth that God is good. You must take into account the idea that God is good as a whole, and by that I mean God is good all the time whether physically observable and or spiritually observable. To say that God is not good because the little girl dies of cancer is to discredit and apply the potential for God’s divine goodness to physical reality alone. God is still good, but in this case Spiritual reality maybe be better equipped to explain and nurture the true goodness of God in that particular instance. Again in each circumstance one must weigh whether or not God’s goodness is observable to them physically and if its not then we should simply defer to the divine and attempt to understand his plan outside our observable reality. If we take this approach God would maintain his status as all knowing, all-powerful and always just and good. 

The Parachute of Faith

So tonight, stirred on by a great meeting with some friends, I was led to this little example to sum up faith...well at least as well as I can explain it.

Okay so first lets envision you were duped into going on a skydiving trip with a few friends. You are super terrified of jumping out of a plane not to mention you are scared of heights so jumping out of a plane at any height greater than 3 feet is too much for you to bear.

You decide to do some research about skydiving and the parachutes that will help to ensure your safe landing on terra firma. You study the weight capacity of the parachute, the oxygen level when you jump from the plane, you study the success rate of jumpers landing without splattering all over the ground and so on.

The day of the jump is here and you have prepared yourself with all the information possible and you have rehearsed what the jump will look like but still you are not settled because you have no way of knowing whether or not you will land safely. Now in an ideal world, like in the movie Back to the Future, you can travel to the future and verify that you actually land safely.

So you are standing there all ready to go. You have thought through this but you realize again you can't know for sure so you hold on to the side as you jump. Did you really let go and trust in the parachute to do its job?

Maybe you jump and you wait and wait and wait for the parachute to open itself, eventually you hit the ground having not pulled the cord to release the chute and well you guess what happens to you.

But on the other hand maybe you let go of the side, jump and when the time is right pull the string and glide safely to the earth below you. You did it! You took the leap of faith and trusted in the parachute and it didn't let you down.

Here is where I was going with this. We can reason, research and do all the intellectual things involved in attempting to know God, just like we did before our skydiving trip.

Eventually we come to the point where we realize we cannot reason and research anymore because we realize that knowing God is more than just reason and fact. There is a huge chasm that seperates us from God and eventually we have to jump.

Don't jump holding on to the facts that led you this far thinking that becasue you still cling to you reason that faith will lead you to the answer while you never let faith actually do its thing and become  well, faith.

Also, don't just jump into faith waiting for God to do something for you before you actually try to pull the parachute of faith for yourself, if you do this you will wait and wait and wait until splat...its too late.

Instead jump, pull the string and let the faith you say you have guide the parachute open and land safely in the arms of the Savior.

Are you willing to jump in faith for God? It is my sincere prayer that you are... I will be praying for you all that God's divine parachute opens and guides you safely home!

The Human Predicament

Well, this morning I just wanted to touch on something that if you're an Atheist or a Christian or really anything professing a faith should be concerned about (yes I am saying Atheist's have faith based reasons for believing what they do).


The question is what happens to us when we die? Where do we go? Do we cease to exist?


The way you answer this question should have a dramatic impact on how you live your life.


We as humans, according to a Naturalistic (atheist) worldview, are merely a chance directed by natural selection evolved from a primordial soup on a distant planet in a vast, possibly infinitely regressing and expanding universe. I say possibly here because most scientist still agree with a cosmic singularity of the universe, namely the Big Bang.


The end result of this is you are here on earth existing for maybe 100 years, and then you are going back into nothingness. But that fate doesn't just await you, it awaits the entire planet, which, as is theorized by most scientist, will ultimately end up in a heat death where the planet will simply grow cold and disintegrate spreading our cosmic garbage across the ever expanding universe into infinite space.


What does this sort of view lend to your ultimate significance, value and purpose of life. In truth it lends nothing to any of the afore mentioned aspects of life.


1. In regards to Ultimate Significance, basically what does it matter if you find a cure for cancer, or help to bring peace into the middle east, if your life and ultimately the lives of other generations and the earth itself cease to exist in the future the question is left to be answered, "So What?" Why bother, it all goes to nothingness.


2. In regards to Ultimate Value, what does it matter if you try to life a morally upright and correct life. Who determines your right and wrong, if everything is relative then my goods are just as right as yours are even though you don't agree with my anti-hot dog policy, you have to accept it because its my truth and its right to me. Either way what does that matter, when I will leave this world and cease to exist, why shouldn't I do as I please, steal, cheat, rob, kill. It makes no difference what I do since I will not be held responsible in the next life for anything I do here on earth I merely go the way of Hitler and Ghandi, into nothing.


3. Lastly in regards to Ultimate Purpose, if we are nothing more than "electro-chemicals" as Richard Dawkins puts it then we aren't special at all. We have no purpose or importance, we are just a random chance occurrence and our lives will end the same way they started back to non-existence, where is the purpose in living a life like that?


Bottom line is this, without God and Immortality our lives lack all the significance, value and purpose they need for making this present life worth living and fighting for.


As French Mathematician and Physicist Blaise Pascal puts it in his Wager Argument, "...when the odds that God exists are even, then the prudent man will gamble that God exists. This is a wager that all men must take-the game is in progress and a bet must be laid. There is no opting out: you have already joined the game. Which then will you choose--that God exists or that he does not?"


According to William Lane Craig, "Pascal argues that since the odds are even, reason is not violated in making either choice; so reason cannot determine which bet to make. Therefore, the choice should be made pragmatically in terms of maximizing one's happiness. If one wagers that God exists and he does, one has gained eternal life and infinite happiness. If he does not exist, one has lost nothing. On the other hand, if one wagers that God does not exist and he does, then one has suffered infinite loss. If he does not in fact exist, then one has gained nothing. Hence, the only prudent choice is to believe that God exists."


This point of view on God has become known as a "Properly Basic Belief" on which Alvin Plantinga has based his Reformed Epistemology.


So which will you choose?


I have chosen the first and the "Properly Basic Belief." I have nothing to lose and eternity to gain, which do you have?