Apologetics Application Paper Part 2 Submission Form Jeremy Story

The following is a report on the practical applications of Alex McFarland's book, The 10 Most Common Objections to Christianity

Naturalism or atheism is based on the belief that there is no God or any supreme being, and the world just evolved from nothingness. The ultimate reality of Naturalism is that the eternal existence and everything that exists was created from nothing. Carl Sagan said, “Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature, c 1985.” With this train of thought the realty is looked at from a scientific point of view. Naturalism teaches that the world came about by chance, and life evolved from a simple organism to man’s life today. The theory has been debated from the Darwinism era to today. This is a theory that is presented as a fact, the science of Man.

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

I have not seen a response to this problem so effectively stated, honest, and convincing. Nagel's arguments concerning the Theodicy Problem show that atheists think in a much more straightforward and practical fashion than do theists.

For this reason, a large part of the society is likely to embrace creationism. Moreover, various religious denominations already propagate the belief in a higher power, making creationism more intellectually and socially palatable to a majority of people, both scholars and lay audiences. A related issue is

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

The approach of this article with today evangelism deals with the counterfeit faith of some people proclaiming Jesus as their savior. However, if this faith does not show evidence by transforming their lives, then does not deserved to be called saving faith. Such transformation has to show a change on their behaviors. This does not stop there. A true Christian need to perform daily “self-examination” of its own testimony. Another false gospel is to separate incarnational from informational apologetic. They go hand in hand as an absolute truth of Jesus Christ in evangelism. Some would have us believe that incarnational apologetic is not necessary in our society. But, they stand very far from the truth. Both “incarnational and informational” apologetic are interlaced and important tools for our daily life.

The purpose of this paper is to describe Creationism and Natural Selection by the means of Darwin and Paley's views. Both scientists use Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) to support their claims. Paley presents the information of Creationism and how the intelligent designer model works (watch model). Darwin presents the argument that Natural Selection has occurred, even though some evidence is missing. I will be arguing that Natural Selection is more plausible than Creationism because there has to have been changes and processes to get where modern society is today.

meaning everything that exists is all just physical matter. Based off of these beliefs there is also no God because there is no need for one. Therefore because there is no God there is no purpose or meaning for your life because when you die you don't go to heaven or hell you just die. Because in Naturalism God is non-existent you would then have to explain the creation of the universe in some other way. Most Naturalists primarily believe in the big bang and evolution but in this belief comes the first contradiction of naturalism. The theory of evolution is in direct conflict with naturalism. For evolution to work it requires life to continuously multiply in turn giving your life purpose and contradicting the belief in naturalism.

As stated in The Historical Context of Atheism,  new atheists tend to confuse methodological naturalism and scientific naturalism. Starting with the latter, scientific naturalism states that only things that can be studied by science can exist. Methodological naturalism states that scientist involved are only concerned with testing the physical world. Scientific naturuslism is incompatible

There are a number of reasons that have been presented showing that atheists are more intelligent than the religious people. Intelligent has been defined as the ability of an individual to reason, plan, and solve the problems that are presented to them.

Furthermore, the historical context and evolution between atheism and Secular Humanism are differentiable. The history of western atheism is traced back to the pre-Socrates Greek philosophy. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes were the 6th century Milesian philosophers to reject the mythological explanation of universe and human life. They brought the idea that nature could be understood as a self-contained system. As for the 5th century Greek philosopher Diagoras, he is claimed to be the first self-identified atheist who opposed and criticized the idea of religion and mysticism.

Human beings are perhaps the most complex of all living organisms, embodying properties which are unprecedented in the animal kingdom. Other creatures behave according to nature’s dictum, but mankind utilizes nature in order to serve higher purposes. The question of what sets mankind apart is easily answered: man is a philosopher, who attempts to discover meaning in what would otherwise be a completely mechanistic universe. Humanity is hardwired with a belief in its own purpose. There are three mainstream views that atheists resort to on the topic of man’s purpose: namely, existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism—however, these philosophies are riddled with logical flaws. On the theistic spectrum, Christianity provides an alternative response, which solves the problems introduced by the atheist worldviews.

For us to understand the whole principle of Religion, we must delve into the different principles that it has to offer us. Religion has become a major asset in life. It has touched each and every one of us. It has influenced our lives and taught us morality, traditions, beliefs and experiences of people. The majority has been wrong many times in history. Simply going to a majority opinion on a subject like religion is not a wise thing to do. The important thing is to know what we believe in. Why and what do we believe in. We were brought up by our parents to believe in what they believe in. We usually accept those beliefs and later in life, we choose either to continue believing in them or not. This is where atheistic challenges to Religion come in. These challenges oppose the beliefs of any religion. Moreover, religion does not only consist of one category that only accepts and follow the same beliefs but it also has three other categories. These categories help us understand the significance of Religious Diversity. It includes Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism. This paper will be separated into two parts. The first part will focus on Religious Diversity, the atheistic challenges to doing Comparative Philosophy of Religion and the importance of these categories. The second part will delve into a deeper understanding of the Philosophy of Religion in which consistency, coherence and reasonableness will be defined.