Evan Minton's Blog, page 26

July 21, 2019

Q&A: Three Questions From A Deist In Thailand



Hi, I’m a deist from Thailand

How would you answer objections to biblical God such as

Argument number 1

Premise 1: There is no such thing as BEFORE time since before need temporal relation
Premise 2: Biblical God describes in the bible as exist before time
Conclusion: There is no God

Since there is no before time

My evidence:

"the hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (Titus 1:2).

As a deist, I accepted transcendent creator of our universe as TIMELESS not BEFORE t...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on July 21, 2019 16:09

July 9, 2019

4 Questions Everyone Investigating The Case For Christianity Should Ask Themselves




When it comes to investigating the evidences and arguments for and against worldviews, we need to realize that we human beings are not mere thinking machines; only considering the facts and logic, and generating conclusions based on hard, cold rationality. We're not perfect, and one of the effects of the fall said by theologians is said to be "The Noetic Effect", that the sin nature affects our ability to reason properly. Sin doesn't completely debilitate us from reasoning. If that were the c...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on July 09, 2019 12:10

July 1, 2019

On The Passing Of Norman Geisler


When I logged onto Facebook today, I was saddened to find out that apologist and prolific author Dr. Norman Geisler had passed away at the age of 87. Norman Geisler has been defending Christianity from "the intellectual attacks of the heathen" to use C.S Lewis' words, for more than 40 years. Among his best and most widely known works include I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist which he co-wrote with Frank Turek of Cross Examined as well as Chosen But Free, revised edition: A...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on July 01, 2019 10:17

June 19, 2019

Q&A: Acts 17:26 and Adam



Hi, I have a quick question: If Adam and Eve were not the first humans, how should we interpret Paul in Acts 17:26 when he says that through one Man God made all the nations of humanity?
Thanks!

Blessings,
Aidan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question, Aiden! Aiden here is referring to my Evolutionary Creationist view that Adam and Eve, while real people in a real past, were not created de novo and were not the sole pro...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 19, 2019 12:17

June 4, 2019

Q&A: The Moral Argument, Moral Relativism, and Perfect Being Theology



A very common argument that I have heard for the existence of God is the moral argument. You argue as follows: 
"1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.3: Therefore, God exists."
For number 1 it depends on what you mean by objective. If you mean a moral standard that is beyond humanity and independent of us then you are correct. If however, you mean that there aren't emotion-based principles that possess a cert...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 04, 2019 08:53

May 28, 2019

The Big Bang NOT Debunked - Another Response To Rationality Rules


Stephen Woodford, a YouTuber known as Rationality Rules has produced another video trying to take down The Kalam Cosmological Argument. This one doesn't attack the argument itself, but goes after one of the pieces of evidence that establish one of the premises. 
Again, for the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument goes as follows 
1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2: The universe began to exist.3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. 
And once these two premises are r...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 28, 2019 07:00

May 12, 2019

The Moral Argument NOT Debunked - Response To YouTuber Rationality Rules


After writing my blog post titled "The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked - A Response to YouTuber Rationality Rules", one of my Facebook friends commented in one of the various places I had posted that blog post on Facebook and in the comment, he asked if I would respond to his video dealing with The Moral Argument. I agreed to it because (1) he asked me to, and (2) Rationality Rules (RR) is a very popular atheist YouTuber whose videos get thousands of views and who makes thousands of...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 12, 2019 10:38

May 7, 2019

The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked -- A Response To YouTuber Rationality Rules



I discovered a YouTuber called "Rationality Rules" very recently. One of his many videos is "The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked - (First Cause Argument Refuted)".  which you can watch here. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go.
For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows:
1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2: The universe began to exist.3: Therefore, the universe has a cause....
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 07, 2019 06:58

April 25, 2019

Become a Cerebral Faith Patron



Running a ministry by yourself can be tough. Yeah, if you didn't know, Cerebral Faith is just me, Evan Minton. I don't have a team like FreeThinking Ministries or Cross Examined does. I have to do everything myself from writing the blog posts, writing the books, proofreading the books, formatting the paperback and Kindle editions of the books, record the podcasts, and so on.

It takes a lot of effort to run Cerebral Faith, but it can take money as well. If my computer goes bad, it'll be difficu...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on April 25, 2019 12:21

April 16, 2019

A Courageous Argument Against A Maximally Great Being


Someone left this argument against the first premise of The Modal Ontological Argument on The Cerebral Faith Facebook Page and I didn't know how to respond. The argument is intended to show that a Maximally Great Being is incoherent, falsifying the first premise.

It goes like this:

Premise 1. A maximally great being would be as actively courageous and perseverant as possible and as comfortable and secure as possible.

Premise 2. Having active courage and perseverance requires that a being overcom...
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on April 16, 2019 09:12