Belated Pre-Thanksgiving Christian Carnival

Welcome to the November 23, 2011 edition of christian carnival ii.   Mark Taylor was supposed to host but must have fallen into a turkey coma, so I'm honored to present the following submissions.   I've set the date to say the 23rd so the widget wouldn't glitch, but I'm actually posting this on the 27th, for anyone who is confused.

Chris Price presents On This Date, the Pilgrims Reached America posted at American Church History.

apologetics

Carson Weitnauer presents Faith at Thanksgiving and If you were born in another country, would you still be a Christian? posted at Reasons for God.

Yours Truly presents Fringe observations on last night's season finale posted at Modesto Apologetics Examiner.

Aoide-Melete-Mneme presents Is the King James Version Only Crowd Causing Others to Sin? posted at à la mode de les Muses, saying, "Note that satire isn't my strong point."

Holly Ordway presents The Problem of Pain Sonnet Sequence 3 posted at Hieropraxis. This is part of her series of literary apologetics in practice: a sonnet that addresses one aspect of the problem of evil.

Tom Gilson presents If Christianity Is Your Religion, Don't Thank God for the Cross posted at Thinking Christian.

Mikel Del Rosario presents Sharing the Gospel - 10 Surprisingly Simple Tips for Talking with Cult Members (Part 3) posted at Apologetics Guy.

Observations on the finale of Fringe

The Observer known as "September"

So tonight was the (correction:  fall) finale of Fringe, named Wallflower for an invisible man, but probably also calling attention to Peter taking a less active roll in this particular multiverse by making Lincoln more attractive to Olivia (with a new pair of glasses?!).  Anyway…  How will they be able to prove this is not an entirely different Olivia, and is actually just an Olivia that has forgotten her relationship with Peter (as the Observer, named September, said at the end of last season)?  Ah, so tragic if such proof is impossible.   He's giving her away...

And I still have questions remaining from 'last' season's finale and am losing hope that they will be resolved.  Why rescue Peter as a child (so that he could go on to fulfill his purpose) only to later wipe him from the timeline (because he fulfilled his purpose)—since, after wiping Peter from the timeline, the purpose was still fulfilled, and he was never even necessary (right?)?  (Not saying I think Peter was actually unnecessary...fictionally speaking.)  And after having a discussion with some fans on Fringe’s Facebook page, I have to ask:  Which is the real mess-up—that Walter found the cure, or that Peter fell through the ice?!

Regarding purpose (Peter’s, yes—but purpose in general)—who are the Observers to decide how things should go and who is important?  "August" shows they are mortal, and their past failure to distract Walter from curing Peter, and their recent failure to completely erase Peter, show they are fallible, not to mention inconsistent.   NOT that erasing Peter would be a good thing.

I'm beginning to think it's not 'supposed' to make sense—it's just supposed to make you toss around questions about what our purpose is and whether it is 'natural' (part of the 'course' of the universe or whatever Being for which that may be a metaphor) or artificially manipulated (by a time-transcendent Observer, or by yourself—caring for someone).  It's all very Sartre, all very Socrates’ dialogue with Diotima on love, and with Euthyphro on the good.  Can't wait for the season to resume in January...

Answering Stephen Law's evil god argument

This is a reply to Stephen Law’s “evil god” argument he gave in his debate with William Lane Craig in October.  I first posted a version of it in a comment to my blog post here, in reply to Jason Thibodeau.

Stephen Law cooks up an evidential problem of good against an evil god (reverses the theistic answers to the evidential problem of evil) and then asks why the evidential problem of evil isn’t an equally good argument.  Actually, he asks, “if the evil god hypothesis can, solely on the basis of observational evidence, be ruled out as highly unlikely, why can’t we similarly rule out the good god hypothesis?”

Law considers the privation bit below to be “more of a Catholic thing” which is false—it is not restricted to Catholicism.  I’m not sure ‘why’ Dr. Craig ignores it, but his argument (which Law pretty much ignores) does allude to it:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)
4. Therefore, God exists.

But here’s the privation bit, which goes back to Augustine.

In order to sin or commit evil, there must first be a way things ‘should’ have gone—a way things are ‘supposed’ to be—a real ‘ought’—a preexistent good.  A falling short (sin), or privation (evil) [sin=evil], of the way things are supposed to be (the good), cannot exist unless there really is a way things are supposed to be.  See how similar this sounds to Dr. Craig’s argument?

1.  If God does not exist, “the way things are supposed to be” (a real ought/good) does not exist.
2.  Evil (privation of a real ought/good) exists.
3.  Therefore, “the way things are supposed to be” (a real ought/good) exists.
4.  Therefore, God exists.

So—first exists the way things are supposed to be, without which a falling short (sin), or privation (evil), is impossible (again, sin=evil).

That good—that 'way' things are supposed to be—if there IS one—is God.

God, because he is omnipotent, cannot fall short of himself, cannot be a privation of himself, cannot depart from the way things are supposed to be (himself).  [Such falling short, privation, departing--all of those things are weakness.]  Therefore, God can never be evil.  He has the choice—he will just never choose it, because that would be weakness, and he is omnipotent.  This argument goes back to Aquinas.

In short, evil cannot exist without a preexistent good, so whether one observes evil or good, neither can be used to argue for an evil god (because it cannot exist without a preexistent good which is more ultimate), whereas both can be used to argue for a good god (because the presence of good, as well as the presence of evil, requires the existence of a real ‘way things are supposed to be’—God).

This does not prove the existence of God, of course, but it does give us “very good grounds” (Law)—whereas the existence of an evil god is logically incoherent.

Christian Carnival

Welcome to the November 9, 2011 edition of christian carnival ii.

I'd like to mention two pieces of news before you dig in to this feast.

1. Mark Deviny of Christian Apologetics Alliance has put together a new Christian apologetics search engine named C.A.S.E., appropriately. Currently searches 200+ apologetics sites and growing.

2. William Lane Craig's half of his debate with the empty chair formerly known as Richard Dawkins (we love you anyway) is now viewable on YouTube.

Aoide-Melete-Mneme presents Thoughts on Mark posted at à la mode de les Muses, saying, "Touching upon the touchy topic of charitable giving."

apologetics

Wintery Knight presents Can atheists know whether God has a reason for allowing pain and suffering? posted at Wintery Knight.

C.A.S.E. - Christian Apologetics Search Engine

Check out this new Christian apologetics search engine (C.A.S.E.) put together by Mark Deviny of Christian Apologetics Alliance.  Over 200 apologetics websites and growing.  Here are some questions you can ask in the search engine:

Isn’t there truth in every religion? 
Why do you believe Christianity exclusively?
How do you know God exists?
Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?
Wasn’t Jesus just a copycat myth?
Isn’t the Bible just a bunch of made-up stories?
If God is good and all-powerful, why is there so much evil in the world?
Why does God allow natural disasters to cause so much suffering?
Doesn’t evolution disprove the existence of a Creator?
Don’t you just have blind, unthinking faith?
Why did God order so many people to be slaughtered in the Old Testament?
Why do we need God for moral truth—aren’t lots of people good without God?
If Jesus sets us free, why is the church a bunch of hypocrites?
What about people who have never heard of Jesus—does God send them to hell?