Ethics

If God Exists, Why Is There Pain and Suffering? (Post 9)

If God Exists, Why Is There Pain and Suffering? (Post 9)

We have seen that God has a very good reason to allow pain and suffering in the world—its possibility was the only way he could create us with true freedom and all that goes with it. But what about hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases? Can God not limit these and still preserve human freedom? He can, but it seem there may be other morally sufficient reasons for him to permit these evils. I’ll offer an argument to this conclusion in the next few posts.

If God Exists, Why Is There Pain and Suffering? (Post 5)

If God Exists, Why Is There Pain and Suffering? (Post 5)

Many argue the reality of pain and suffering proves God does not exist. But this is only true if the premises leading to this conclusion are correct. Last week I discussed why Muslims reject the first premise and why they are wrong. But others think the problem is elsewhere: either God is not all-powerful, or Evil is not real. Do either of these responses solve the problem?

What Is The Bible? Good and Bad Answers and Arguments (Post 4)

What Is The Bible? Good and Bad Answers and Arguments (Post 4)

There are not only bad arguments against inerrancy; there are equally bad arguments for inerrancy. Today I look at three often-heard arguments in favor of inerrancy that I don’t think are good ones. I conclude by suggesting one argument I take to be adequate, and then outline what I take to be an even better argument in support of God’s Word being without error.

What Is The Bible? Good and Bad Answers and Arguments (Post 3)

What Is The Bible? Good and Bad Answers and Arguments (Post 3)

It is fashionable these days to argue against inerrancy, even given the nuances and caveats I discussed in my last two articles. There are three reasons I hear most often from those who reject inerrancy. This week I’ll discuss and evaluate each of these arguments, and show why I think they fail.

Four Steps to Determining the Morality of Abortion (7 of 8)

Four Steps to Determining the Morality of Abortion (7 of 8)

In vitro fertilization, embryonic stem research, genetic testing and human cloning are moral issues of our day closely related to the abortion debate. The underlying issues discussed in this series concerning the morality of abortion also apply to these important topics. Whether one takes and essentialist or functionalist view of personhood will also determine the morality of these practices and procedures.

Four Steps to Determining the Morality of Abortion (6 of 8)

Four Steps to Determining the Morality of Abortion (6 of 8)

The alternative to life beginning at conception due to a human soul being present is a “functional” definition of personhood. This is the view underlying all pro-choice arguments. If this definition of life is correct, the pro-choice conclusion is completely reasonable. Yet there are at least five problems with the functionalist definition of personhood.

Four Steps to Determining the Morality of Abortion (5 of 8)

Four Steps to Determining the Morality of Abortion (5 of 8)

Many object to my conclusion that life begins at conception.  The central objection is that we can’t observe a soul, to know when it begins. However, we can observe when certain life-sustaining functions begin. Therefore only when the fetus functions in these ways can we say it is alive. Yet this is well past the point of conception. So life must not begin at conception.

There are at least three responses to this objection.