Category Archives: The Leibniz Cosmological

Leibniz asks the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing.” He reasons that “nothing happens without a sufficient reason.” Thus the universe must have a sufficient reason for its existence – that reason is God.

Q17: You say everything needs a creator, so who created God?

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

God is eternal

The question “Who created God?”, is at the heart of the matter for Question 17:  “You say everything needs a creator, so who created God?” and it shows a severe misunderstanding of both the nature of God and the cosmological argument for the existence of God—specifically the Kalam cosmological argument [1]. Let’s start with the Kalam cosmological argument, which makes it easy to see where the error crept in.

Apologist William Lane Craig has used this argument as one of the premiere arguments for the proof of the existence of God, so it’s in many of his books. As he points out in “On Guard”, it’s simple, easy to memorize, easy to share and logically “airtight.” It goes like this:  Continue Reading

Fairytale Apologetics, the Doctrine of Demons and Biblical Inerrancy

Posted on by

Big Bang Fairytale

What happens when you mix a lie with the truth? Do you wind up with a true statement, or a false statement? That’s easy. You get a false statement. For example:

The ark was a huge boat that was 450 feet long. (True – Gen 6:15)
The ark could fly. (False)
Combined:
The ark was a huge boat that was 450 feet long that could fly. (False)

The final statement is clearly false. Unequivocally false. Either the entire statement is true, or it is false. This mixing of the truth with lies is a favorite tactic of Satan. He used it way back in the garden of Eden on Eve:

“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.
“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
(Gen 3.4-5)

Notice his mixing of truths and lies: Continue Reading

Leibniz’ Cosmological Argument: Testimony of the Golden Gate Bridge Part 2

Posted on by

The above logo was created for the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Golden Gate bridge.  According to retired Security chief Bill Rumsford, they were expecting 40-50,000 people. But the turnout was closer to 250 to 275,000 people. While they were confident the bridge would hold, Chief Engineer Denis Mulligan noted “What was interesting is that’s the greatest loading the bridge has ever seen. It carries trucks and buses and cars everyday, but people packed in there like sardines in a can actually caused the bridge to sag.”[1]

But this article is not on the structural integrity of the bridge. This is about something a bit more obvious. The above logo is painted on a building near the bridge. (Note the artist painting it.)

A Painting Requires a Painter

The obvious point that I want to make is that for a painting to exist, it needs a painter. Obvious right? Because a painting – in this case a logo – is a special case of a design that is implemented.  In the previous article we looked at another special design – that of irreducible complexity. As discussed in the previous article, an irreducibly complex object cannot be made by random forces. It must be designed and assembled by an intelligent designer.  And as pointed out in part 1 – a suspension bridge like the Golden Gate bridge is irreducibly complex. Continue Reading