On Guard

1. Apologetics: Defending Faith in a Skeptical World

Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you.

A vital defense. Apologetics, derived from the Greek word apologia meaning "defense in a court of law," is not about apologizing for one's faith but about making a compelling case for its truth. This practice is explicitly commanded in 1 Peter 3:15, urging believers to be ready to explain their hope with gentleness and respect. Far from being unbiblical, both Jesus and the apostles consistently offered evidence and arguments for their claims, trusting the Holy Spirit to use these rational appeals to draw people to God.

Three key reasons. Training in apologetics is crucial for Christians today, serving three primary purposes. Firstly, it helps shape culture by presenting Christian belief as an intellectually viable option, countering secularism and the "New Atheism" that seeks to eliminate religious thought. Secondly, it strengthens believers, boosting confidence in sharing faith and providing a solid foundation during times of doubt, especially for young people facing intellectual assaults in higher education. Finally, it is effective in winning unbelievers, particularly influential thinkers like engineers, doctors, and lawyers, who respond to rational arguments and evidence.

Beyond mere emotion. Apologetics elevates faith beyond mere emotional experience, grounding it in truth and reason. It transforms individuals into thoughtful, well-rounded persons capable of articulating their beliefs with conviction and compassion, rather than defensiveness or anger. By engaging with life's deepest questions about God, the universe, and morality, believers gain a profound appreciation for their Christian worldview and become more effective ambassadors for Christ in a superficial world.

2. Life's Ultimate Meaning Hinges on God's Existence

If God does not exist, then life is absurd.

The grim implications. Without God, life is ultimately absurd, devoid of objective meaning, value, or purpose. This isn't to say atheists can't experience personal meaning or live moral lives, but that these are subjective illusions in a godless universe. The inevitable death of both individuals and the universe itself—a cosmic "heat death" where all energy dissipates into cold, dark nothingness—renders all human endeavors ultimately insignificant.

No ultimate significance. If human existence is merely a fleeting spark in an indifferent cosmos, then our lives, achievements, and even the entire human race are ultimately inconsequential. The contributions of scientists, doctors, or diplomats, however noble, come to nothing if everything is doomed to destruction. Mere immortality wouldn't solve this; an unending, meaningless existence would be a curse, not a blessing. True significance requires both God and immortality.

Moral and purposeful void. In a world without God, there is no objective standard for right and wrong; moral values become mere expressions of personal taste or evolutionary by-products. Actions like love and hate become morally equivalent, and atrocities cannot be condemned as objectively evil. Similarly, life lacks ultimate purpose, as both humanity and the universe are accidental products of chance, thrust into existence for no reason and destined for oblivion. This stark reality forces atheists into an inconsistent denial, pretending meaning and value exist to avoid despair.

3. The Universe's Existence Points to a Necessary Creator

The first question which should rightly be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Leibniz's profound question. The German philosopher G. W. Leibniz posed the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He concluded that the answer lies in God, a necessarily existing being who explains the existence of everything else. This reasoning forms a powerful argument for God's existence, easily summarized in three premises.

The argument's structure:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in its own nature or an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
   Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence, and that explanation is God.

Addressing objections. The first premise is often challenged by asking for God's cause. However, the premise clarifies that explanations can be either an external cause or the necessity of a thing's own nature. God, if He exists, is a necessarily existing being, meaning it's impossible for Him not to exist, thus requiring no external cause. To deny this premise for the universe while accepting it for everything else is the "taxicab fallacy," arbitrarily dismissing a principle once a desired conclusion is reached.

The nature of the cause. The second premise is highly plausible. If the universe (all of space-time, matter, and energy) has a cause, that cause must be non-physical, immaterial, and beyond space and time. Only two types of entities fit this description: abstract objects (like numbers) or an unembodied mind. Since abstract objects cannot cause anything, the cause must be a transcendent Mind—God. This argument leads to the staggering conclusion of an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator.

4. The Universe Had a Beginning, Requiring a Transcendent Cause

Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.

Al-Ghazali's argument. The 12th-century Muslim theologian Al-Ghazali argued that a beginningless universe is absurd, leading to the kalam cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   The first premise is almost self-evident; something cannot come from absolute nothingness. To suggest otherwise is "worse than magic," as nothingness has no properties to cause anything. This principle is a metaphysical truth, not just a law within the universe, and is confirmed by common experience and scientific evidence.

The impossibility of actual infinites. The second premise, that the universe began to exist, is supported by two philosophical arguments. Firstly, an actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality, though a potentially infinite number can. Illustrations like "Hilbert's Hotel" demonstrate the absurdities that arise from an actual infinite, such as a hotel with no vacancies that can still accommodate infinite new guests. These paradoxes show that an actually infinite past is impossible, meaning the universe must have had a beginning.

Traversing an infinite past. Secondly, one cannot traverse an actually infinite number of elements one at a time. The series of past events is formed by adding one event after another, leading up to today. If the past were infinite, today could never have been reached, as an infinite number of prior events would have had to occur first. Since we are here, the past must be finite and have a beginning. This argument is distinct from the first and reinforces the conclusion that the universe began to exist.

Scientific confirmation. Modern science provides powerful evidence for the universe's beginning. The "Big Bang" theory, supported by the expansion of the universe (redshift), the abundance of light elements, and cosmic microwave background radiation, predicts an absolute beginning of space and time. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003) further proves that any universe, including a hypothetical "multiverse," that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history must have a past space-time boundary. This means the universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

Thermodynamic evidence. The second law of thermodynamics states that closed systems tend towards increasing disorder (entropy) until they reach a state of "heat death" or equilibrium. If the universe had existed forever, it would already be in such a state of maximum entropy, cold, dark, and lifeless. The fact that our universe is still orderly and full of available energy implies it has not existed for an infinite past but began a finite time ago. Attempts to avoid this conclusion, like oscillating or bubble universe models, have failed or still require a beginning for the larger multiverse.

5. Cosmic Fine-Tuning Demands an Intelligent Designer

The universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a complexity and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension.

A delicate balance. Modern astronomy has revealed that the universe's initial conditions are incredibly precise, a phenomenon known as "fine-tuning" for life. This involves two aspects: the fundamental constants of nature (e.g., gravitational force, electromagnetic force) and arbitrary physical quantities (e.g., initial entropy of the universe). Even minuscule alterations in these values would render the universe life-prohibiting, preventing the formation of matter, chemistry, or any form of life.

Examples of precision. The weak force, for instance, must be tuned to one part in 10^100, and the cosmological constant to one part in 10^120. Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the universe's low-entropy state existing by chance as one in 10^10^123. These numbers are astronomically improbable, making the fine-tuning an undeniable scientific fact. The term "fine-tuned" is neutral, simply describing this narrow range of life-permitting values, not implying design a priori.

Three explanations. The fine-tuning of the universe can be attributed to three possibilities: physical necessity, chance, or design. The argument for design proceeds by eliminating the first two. Physical necessity is implausible because the constants and quantities are not determined by natural laws; a "theory of everything" (like M-theory) still allows for 10^500 different universes, most of which are life-prohibiting. Chance is also highly improbable; like winning a rigged lottery where the only winning ticket is life-permitting, the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

The many worlds hypothesis. To salvage chance, some propose a "many worlds hypothesis" or "multiverse," suggesting our universe is one of an infinite ensemble where all possibilities are realized. However, this hypothesis faces severe challenges:

• The multiverse itself may require fine-tuning for its generating mechanism.
• The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies even a multiverse must have a beginning, limiting the number of worlds.
• It leads to the "Boltzmann brain" problem, where it's vastly more probable that we are disembodied brains with illusory perceptions of a fine-tuned universe than actual inhabitants of one.
  Thus, the many worlds hypothesis is highly speculative and ultimately fails to explain fine-tuning without resorting to further contrivances or even God.

6. Objective Morality Requires a Divine Foundation

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

The moral argument. Many philosophers argue that morality itself points to God's existence. The moral argument states:

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.
   This argument distinguishes between moral values (good/bad) and duties (right/wrong), and between objective (independent of opinion) and subjective (dependent on opinion) morality. The premise asserts that without God, morality is merely subjective.

God as moral anchor. If God does not exist, moral values lack an objective foundation. Naturalism, the most popular form of atheism, views humans as accidental by-products of evolution and social conditioning. In this view, morality is merely a "herd morality" that aids survival, not an objectively true system. As Darwin noted, if humans evolved under different conditions, our moral values could be drastically different (e.g., killing siblings or fertile daughters). Without God, there's no basis to claim human moral worth is special or objectively true, leading to "speciesism."

No moral duties without God. Similarly, without a divine lawgiver, objective moral duties disappear. Humans, as mere animals, would have no more moral obligations than lions or sharks. Actions like rape or incest might be socially disadvantageous, but not objectively wrong. They would be "unfashionable" rather than evil. The Euthyphro dilemma, which asks if something is good because God wills it (arbitrary) or if God wills it because it is good (independent of God), is a false choice. The Christian view is that God wills something because He is good; His nature is the standard of goodness, and His commands reflect that nature, making them non-arbitrary.

The reality of objective morality. The second premise, that objective moral values and duties exist, is widely accepted, even by many atheists. Our moral experience tells us that actions like rape, torture, and child abuse are not just socially unacceptable but moral abominations. To deny this is to be morally handicapped. While sociobiological accounts explain how our moral perceptions evolved, they don't undermine the truth or justification of objective moral beliefs, especially if God exists and guided that evolution. The moral argument is powerful because it touches people deeply; every day, by how we live, we affirm the existence of objective moral values.

7. Suffering, While Painful, Does Not Disprove God's Existence

As a philosopher I’m called upon to say what I think about some question, not how I feel about it.

The greatest objection. The problem of suffering is often considered the most significant argument against God's existence, both intellectually and emotionally. It's crucial to distinguish between these two aspects: the intellectual problem questions the logical possibility or probability of God and suffering coexisting, while the emotional problem concerns people's dislike of a God who permits suffering. For most, it's primarily an emotional struggle.

The intellectual challenge. When addressing the intellectual problem, the burden of proof lies with the atheist to demonstrate that God and suffering are either logically impossible or highly improbable. The logical version, which claims God and suffering are contradictory, has largely failed. It relies on hidden assumptions like "If God is all-powerful, He can create any world He wants" and "If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering." These are not necessarily true, especially if free will exists or if God has overriding reasons for permitting suffering that lead to a greater good.

The evidential challenge. The evidential version argues that the amount and kind of suffering make God's existence improbable, as much suffering appears pointless. However, our finite human limitations prevent us from confidently judging God's reasons.

• Chaos theory: Small, seemingly insignificant events can have vast, unpredictable consequences over time, making it impossible for us to discern God's long-term purposes.
• Limited perspective: God, with infinite knowledge, may permit suffering for reasons that only emerge centuries later or in another context, such as drawing people to Himself or fostering spiritual growth.
  Therefore, we are not in a position to assess the probability that God lacks good reasons for permitting suffering.

Christian doctrines and suffering. Christianity offers doctrines that increase the probability of God and suffering coexisting:

• Purpose of life: The chief purpose is not happiness, but the knowledge of God, which suffering can facilitate.
• Human rebellion: Mankind is in rebellion against God, and much suffering is a consequence of human depravity and sin.
• Eternal perspective: This life is a brief prelude to eternal life, where God promises overwhelming joy and recompense for suffering endured in faith.
• Incommensurable good: The knowledge of God is an incomparable good that outweighs any suffering.
  These doctrines provide a framework where suffering, though terrible, can be understood within God's larger plan, making His existence more probable even in a world of pain.

8. Jesus' Radical Claims Reveal His Divine Self-Understanding

Today there is virtually a consensus that Jesus came on the scene with an unheard-of authority, namely with the authority of God, with the claim of the authority to stand in God’s place.

Historical credibility. To understand Jesus' resurrection, we must first understand His unparalleled life and claims. Historians investigate New Testament documents using the same criteria as other ancient sources, recognizing them as primary sources written within a generation of Jesus' death. Skeptical assumptions that gospels are unreliable until proven otherwise are flawed, given:

• Insufficient time for legends to erase core facts.
• Gospels are not folk tales but accounts of real people and events.
• Reliable Jewish tradition transmission.
• Eyewitnesses and apostolic supervision.
• Proven historical reliability of authors like Luke.

Explicit claims. Jesus' self-understanding is revealed through explicit claims, which scholars increasingly accept as authentic:

• Messiah: Jesus' acceptance of Peter's confession ("You are the Messiah"), His response to John the Baptist (citing messianic signs), His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (fulfilling Zechariah's prophecy), and His actions in the Temple all point to His messianic self-consciousness. His crucifixion as "King of the Jews" further confirms this.
• Son of God: Parables like the wicked tenants, His claim that "no one knows the Son except the Father," and His statement about the unknown hour of His return ("not even the Son") all underscore His unique and absolute sonship, setting Him apart from prophets and even angels.
• Son of Man: Jesus' favorite self-description, "the Son of Man," consistently used with the definite article, alludes to the divine-human figure in Daniel 7:13-14, who receives everlasting dominion and glory. This title allowed Jesus to convey His superhuman status indirectly.

Implicit claims and authority. Beyond explicit titles, Jesus' teaching and actions implicitly reveal His divine self-understanding:

• Kingdom of God: His proclamation of God's kingdom, with His disciples judging Israel, implies His role as King.
• Divine authority: He taught with personal authority ("But I say to you..."), adjusted Mosaic law, performed exorcisms as signs of God's kingdom breaking in, and claimed the unique prerogative to forgive sins, an act reserved for God alone.
• Miracles: Jesus' numerous miracles, widely attested in gospel sources, were not mere wonders but signs of the kingdom's arrival, performed in His own name, not by prayer to God.
• Judge: Jesus claimed that people's eternal destiny would be determined by their response to Him, placing Himself in the ultimate position of divine judge.
  This cumulative evidence points to Jesus' radical self-concept as a divine figure, setting the stage for the ultimate claim: His resurrection.

9. Historical Evidence Confirms Jesus' Bodily Resurrection

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.

Three established facts. A historical case for Jesus' resurrection rests on three independently established facts, widely accepted by mainstream New Testament scholarship:

1. The Empty Tomb: Jesus' tomb was found empty by women on Sunday morning.
2. Postmortem Appearances: Various individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after His death.
3. Origin of Christian Faith: The disciples sincerely came to believe in Jesus' resurrection despite contrary predispositions.

Evidence for the empty tomb. Five lines of evidence support the empty tomb:

• Reliable burial story: Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, is attested in early, independent sources (Mark's passion source, Paul's tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, other gospel sources). If the burial location was known, the tomb had to be empty for resurrection claims to gain traction in Jerusalem.
• Independent reports: The empty tomb is independently reported in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, and implied in Paul's early tradition and Acts sermons.
• Simplicity of Mark's account: Mark's narrative is stark and unembellished, unlike later legendary accounts (e.g., Gospel of Peter), suggesting historical authenticity.
• Women's discovery: Women, whose testimony was considered legally worthless in Jewish society, are the primary witnesses. This embarrassing detail strongly suggests it's historical, not invented.
• Earliest Jewish response: The earliest Jewish counter-explanation (disciples stole the body, Matt. 28:11-15) implicitly concedes the empty tomb.

Evidence for postmortem appearances. Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is crucial:

• Appearances to Peter and the Twelve: Attested by Paul (who met Peter) and independent gospel accounts (Luke, John), these are widely accepted.
• Appearance to 500 brethren: Paul's challenge ("most of whom are still alive") confirms this mass appearance, which likely occurred in Galilee.
• Appearance to James: Jesus' skeptical brother became a pillar of the church after an appearance, a transformation inexplicable otherwise.
• Appearance to Paul: The persecutor Saul's radical conversion is attributed to seeing the risen Jesus.
  These appearances were physical and bodily, not mere visions, as implied by Paul's teaching on the resurrection body and the unanimous gospel testimony.

Explaining the evidence. Rival naturalistic hypotheses fail to adequately explain these three facts:

• Conspiracy theory: Disciples stole the body and lied. Fails due to implausibility (why invent women witnesses?), lack of explanatory power (doesn't explain transformation of disciples), and anachronism (Jews wouldn't invent a crucified Messiah).
• Apparent death hypothesis: Jesus survived crucifixion. Fails due to medical implausibility (Roman executioners ensured death, spear thrust), and lack of explanatory power (a half-dead Jesus wouldn't inspire belief in a glorious resurrection).
• Displaced body hypothesis: Joseph moved the body. Fails due to narrow scope (doesn't explain appearances or faith's origin) and implausibility (Jewish burial customs, lack of dispute over body's location).
• Hallucination hypothesis: Disciples experienced visions. Fails due to narrow scope (doesn't explain empty tomb), weak explanatory power (diversity of appearances, not typical of hallucinations), and implausibility (Jewish context would lead to belief in assumption, not resurrection; psychoanalysis of witnesses is speculative).

The resurrection hypothesis. "God raised Jesus from the dead" emerges as the best explanation, possessing:

• Greater explanatory scope: Explains all three facts (empty tomb, appearances, origin of faith).
• Greater explanatory power: Makes the evidence highly probable.
• Plausibility: Fits with Jesus' radical claims and the evidence for God's existence.
• Less contrived: Requires fewer new, unsupported suppositions than rivals.
• Fewer disconfirming beliefs: Doesn't conflict with accepted historical or scientific knowledge (e.g., "dead men don't rise naturally" is consistent with God raising Jesus supernaturally).
  The consensus of scholarship on the three facts, combined with the failure of rival explanations, makes Jesus' resurrection the most compelling historical conclusion.

10. Salvation is Exclusively Through Christ, Addressing Humanity's Plight

There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

The New Testament's clear teaching. The New Testament unequivocally teaches that salvation is found exclusively through Jesus Christ. Paul, in Romans, explains that all humanity is without excuse, having seen God's power in creation and His moral law written on their hearts. Yet, all have rebelled and are under the power of sin, unable to redeem themselves. God, in His love, provided Jesus' atoning death as the sole means of reconciliation and salvation, received by faith. This particularistic doctrine was scandalous in the polytheistic Roman Empire and remains so in today's pluralistic society.

The problem of religious diversity. The "Expansion of Europe" and globalization have highlighted religious diversity, leading many to embrace religious pluralism—the idea that many roads lead to God. This often frames Christian particularism as arrogant or cruel, especially concerning the fate of those who have never heard of Christ. However, arguments for pluralism often commit logical fallacies:

• Argument ad hominem: Attacking the character of particularists (e.g., "it's arrogant to believe your view is right") is fallacious, as truth is independent of the believer's character. Pluralists themselves believe their view is right, making them equally "arrogant" by their own standard.
• Genetic fallacy: Claiming Christian belief is false because it's culturally relative (e.g., "if you were born in Pakistan, you'd be Muslim") is fallacious. The origin of a belief doesn't determine its truth.

The real challenge: the fate of unbelievers. The core problem for particularism is the perceived injustice of a loving God condemning those who never heard of Christ to hell. However, the Bible states God desires all to be saved and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The question is not whether a loving God sends people to hell, but whether people choose to reject God's revelation.

God's justice and mercy. God's justice requires that people be judged according to the light they have received. Those who have never heard of Christ are judged based on their response to God's general revelation in nature and conscience. The Bible suggests that some may be saved through this general revelation, though it is a narrow path. Ultimately, God's justice is perfect, and His mercy is boundless. The Christian particularist believes that God, in His perfect knowledge and justice, will do what is right for all people, even those who have never heard the name of Jesus.

Last updated: February 10, 2026