Well that's a wrap!

Anywhow we finished the how do we know Christianity is true series! Horay!!! Anyway I enjoyed doing it and I am glad you enjoyed it. So I wish everyone learned something from it. I encourage you to get aquainted with each thought of each philosopher and see which works best for you. I personally find alvin plantinga model is the best. Also it leads us into an argument against naturalism. I will blog about that next time so most of all I encourage you to get fimiliar with the terminology used in Plantinga's model because I will be using the same terminology in his argument.

So I like to discuss for today things going on with my life. So let's begin!

Well as some of you know I am complex guy I like all sorts of things mostly philosophy of religion all the way to economics. I been reading and been trying to learn economics. How the economy works which works better capitalism or communism, what is inflation, deflation etc. I really enjoy it. I also like politics a lot. Some say they would vote for me for president but I don't think I would do a good job. As someone special always says to me. Yeah she doesn't think I would do a good job. Speaking of her I might as well tell you how is it going with her. Man I am so in love with this girl. She is the most amazing person I have ever meant. I makes me sad that I could never be with her. No matter what I do or say or wish. Since she doesn't feel the same way. But sometimes I don't know I feel as if love was mutual between us. Some innner concious is telling me don't give up. But I have to give up soon. As you see I plan on moving from the United states. I am going back to my mom's country Nicaragua. I will move around this time next year. I see she doesn't want me to go but doesn't give it to much thought because I still have a long time before it does. Only time would tell how she will feel when the time is here to get my things and leave. I will miss her though she has been the only girl to make me feel this good in a long time. Only if she told me stay I don't want you to leave I won't leave. Even if they paid me a million dollars. That is how much money I would pay just to see what she really feels about me. Does she love me? Likes me more than a friend? Loves me just like a friend? Does she feel confused? Even if she feels confused about her feelings at least that is something. Gosh what I would give for her to be mine!

So yes I am leaving next year. Economic reasons are a majority. Plus something emotional issues. My resolve is set. Anyway I have been debating my friend Livingstone morgan on facebook. The topic is ID or Theistic evolution. My collegue is the former while I am the latter. The debate is friendly and interesting and he is a hell of a debator. He has a blog called Biotalk so go check him out. Besides that, my life has been swell or treating me kindly. Plus the 400 to 2000 mg of caffeine taken in a month keeps me going. Haha! Oh well next time we will discuss the argument against naturalism.

I have been busy sorry!

So I have been busy lately trying to figure out college, SAT etc. I have also been planning on moving from the US this time next year. As to the current economic situation in the U.S I am afraid the country might get worse if the goverment does not take the appropiate actions. But anywho lets discuss the final thinker Alvin plantinga.


Alvin calls this the reformed epistemology model. This is how the model works (keep in mind I will try to break it down to as simple as I can put it) . Alvin plantinga argues that belief in God is wholly warranted without evidence.. He objects to the evidentialist criteria that a belief to be justified must either have some evidence or be foundational to knowledge. Since God is not foundational to knowledge this belief must require evidence. But Plantinga asks why can't God be part of this foundation so that no evidence is needed? But only properly basic beliefs can be part of the foundation. What is a properly basic belief? In simple terms are beliefs we hold without any evidence and are completely reasonable to believe. For example self evident and incorrigible beliefs are properly baisc. An example of a self evident belief would be the sum of two square of the two sides of the right triangle must equal the square of the hypotenuse. This is self evident. An incorrigible belief would be I feel pain. There is no evidence I can show that I feel pain but it is correct because I am the one who can feel my pain. So this renders it properly basic. Now this is correct that these two would be properly basic. But Plantinga argues how do we know if these are the two only properly basic beliefs? In other words are these two types of criteria only qualify to be properly basic? If it is than we are unreasonable in believing most of the things in our lives. For example take the belief that the world wasnt created five minutes with a apperance of age. Obviously this belief isnt self evident or incorrigible so it must require some justification that is to say evidence. But obviously it is reasonable to think that the world has existed for a while. So something must be wrong with this criteria. Plantinga argues that belief in God can be properly basic. Man has innate capacity to apprehend the existence of God given the right circumstances. This is called sensus divintatis. Let me explain. God has design us that we form belief in him naturally. This is how it works. When our cognitive faculties (belief forming mechanisms) are in their appropiate circumstances one can form a properly basic belief in God. One a person sees God handiwork in nature or feels some guilt in sinning etc. He naturally forms a belief in God because his belief forming mechanism were in the appropiate circumstances. To give a analogy lets say you see a tree. Your in the right place to see the tree and your belief forming mechanisms form a belief in the tree existence. The existence of the tree is not inferred but it is properly basic. Your in the appropiate circumstances so you naturally form a belief in the tree's existence. So this is the same way man forms belief in God the same way man forms a belief through perception.

So I guess you can call it being in the right place at the right time. Does this mean anyone can form a belief in anything and be justified? No. If someone claims to have a belief in some deity his cognitive falculties had to be in the appropiate circumstances. If the belief in question was in the inappropiate circumstances than the belief is unjustified. Than the evidentialist cannot just include only inffered propositons but also properly basic propositions. Plantinga also wants us to note that properly basic beliefs cannot be doubted. That is to say in the presence of some defeater the belief can be abandoned. For example lets say the Christian who faces the problem of evil. Now he has a defeater for his belief in God. But Plantinga argues that sometimes the belief has so much warrant it destroys all defeaters to it. To explain this let me give a scenario. Let's say a criminal has been presented evidence that shows he committed the crime. But he knows he didn't it. Should he abandon his belief in his innocence to accept the evidence? No he is justified in believing in his innocence.  Even though he has no evidence to prove this. So Plantinga argues that if the belief in question can produced sufficient warrant we can know God exists. So this is how it drops to in the end. Plantinga believes that if your cognitive faculties are functioning properly in the appropiate circumstance in the enviroment God designed them to you can know God exists. What does it mean to function properly? Well in order to be functioning properly they have to be in the appropiate circumstances. And in order to be in the appropiate circumstances you have to be in an appropiate enviroment to form such a belief. And if one holds this belief firmly enough one can produce sufficient warrant that it constitutes knowledge. So that is how we know God exists.

But what about Christian beliefs? Plantinga argues that the Holy Spirit is too a cognitive faculty so it adheres to the criteria above. When a person is confronted with the truth of the Gospel. He will be in the appropiate circumstance in the enviroment God has designed and if his cognitve faculties are functioning properly he will naturally form a belief in Christianity which thus if he holds it firmly he can know Christianity is true.

Sorry about not blogging...

Well sorry guys for not blogging in a few days but I have been busy planning a covert operation. It's very complicated and needed revisions and I might make one final revision before putting in it into action tomorrow. I wish I could say what is the plan but I decided that would be risky and audacious. So let's wrap up the how do we know Christianity is true series!

Wolfhart Pannenberg
Well he thought that the modern theologians were retreating from the attacks of the seculars sciences. He saw that people who based the foundation for Christianity in mere subjective expierences we trying to shelter Christianity from attacks. That is to say that since there is no way of disproving a subjective expierence Christianity would be safe. But he said that if Christianity was going to make a claim to knowledge and present itself to the world it must also subject itself to the testing and verification. So he placed a tremendous importance on history.


Let's explain his thought. Many people who have read the Bible know how boring it could be sometimes reading about the dates and the number of kings that it had etc. The Bible if it were not the word of God could be accurately called a history book of acient times. So Pannenberg thought this if the Bible asserts all these historical events, then we can investigate them through historical research. For example the Bible talks about the roman empire. If a historian wanted to see if the Bible was credible and accurate in talking about the roman empire than he would investigate to see if the Bible accurately describes the roman empire. Thus, Pannenberg thought the job of proving the Bible is up to the historian. Since the Bible talks about history than they can be investigated by history. If history and the Bible matches perfectly that one can conclude reasonably that the Bible is true word of God. But how does he reach this conclusion. Well the Bible talks about Jesus no? Well it talks about the ressurection of the Christ no? The Bible talks about this as a historical event. So it cannot escape historical research and thus there is a way of proving if it really happened. If it did it can be said with a certain degree of knowledge that Jesus really did come from God. So Christianity must be true. Since the historical facts are reliable one can put his faith in the Bible and in Jesus Christ.


Well next time we will discuss Alvin plantiga and his thought. Then we will wrap this up and do some more natural theology.

What we have so far....

So here is all the thinkers we have discussed so far put into one blog. So get ready this might be long but I will try to condense it.

St.Augustine believed that the foudation for Christianity is authority. Since the Bible is the Word of God is must be believed, since it came from God it must be true. Then he asked himself well many books claim to come from God how do we know which one to choose? He argued that miracles and prophecies make it evident that the Bible is the correct one. But if one keeps on questioning he asked how do we know the miracles even took place? Since the knowledge of the past was accepted on the basis of authority (meaning we accept the testimony of the witness as valid) he said one must accept the testimony of the author of scirpture. But he asked why should one just accept it? He had no way of answering this to avoid cicular reasoning which would be the Bible has authority so the miracles must be true when the miracles are supposed to show the Bible is true. So he appealed to the present day miracle of the Chrurch. He argued even if one rejects all the miracles in the Bible he still has this miracle of the Chruch which is evident. So the Bible must be true because why would anyone believe it only by divine will.

Thomas Aquinas thought that there are 2 types of truths. The truths of reason and the truths of Faith. The truths of reason are truths which can be discovered by inference or philosophy etc. One such of these truths are God exists. Something reason can discover. Then there are the truths of Faith. That reason cannot discovered. This is not to say that they are unreasonable or incoherent. But what this does mean is that these truths cannot be infered or discovered by some argument. For example one can know God exists from the cosmological argument but does the cosmological argument prove that God is triune (three personhoods in one being. Trinitarian concept of God taught in Christianity). Well obviously not. So Thomas said we cannot know the truths of Faith directly but indirectly. How? Well authority. Since the Bible is from God everything it teaches must be true. So when the word of God taken as a whole prove the truths of Faith indirectly. But then again how do we know the Bible has the authority? He said miracles and prophecy made it clear the Bible is true. How do we know the miracles and prophecy took place. He appealed the miracle of the Church as the way of knowing. Thomas also made the important contribution of the reduction of faith to mean a mere trust or commitment of the heart. Faith used to be a way of knowing but Thomas correctly defined the word Faith.


John locke said that every religion must have a foudation based on evidence. This is what we call theological rationalism. He argued that if a belief has no evidence it should be discarded. So Thomas thought the existence of God was a very reasonable thing to believe so he gave arguments for behalf of this. But when he moved into revelation and theological doctrines. He said that revealed truths (revelation) cannot contradict reason. That is to say if a revelation is contradictory to expirence or reason or common sense. Than it is more than likely this revelation is false.  He said that revelation cannot contradict reason because we can always be sure of reason than some revelation claiming to be from God. Locke thought any revelation that came from God is always true but it lies within the scope of reason to examine if it really is from God and determine it's meaning. He gave criteria to determine if a revelation is truely divine. 1. It must not contradict what has already be revealed. 2. It must not inform us of anything that is contray to God or the moral law or something easily discovered ( e.g rocks are hard) 3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs. If the revelation satisfied the criteria than it could be said that the revelation is true. So Locke thought that Jesus fufilled the criteria so we can be sure that Christianity is true.


Henry dodwell going against the prevailing thought of his time argued that how can God expect something as human reason to lead us to faith? He basically said the way one know Christianity is true is not by reason but authority. But not authority of scirpture but the authority from the inner witness of the Holy spirit. This assures us that Christianity is true because the Holy spirit comes from God and since it is from God himself the spirit must be telling the truth.


Well that is it for now as for the two other people I neglected to mention well just look at my last blog for that. Well till next time!

Contemporary thinkers. How do we know Christianity is true?

Even though it is not so contemporary the philosophers I will be discussing nevertheless they are close though. Karl barth and Rodolfo bultman we will discuss theyre thoughts on the issue of reason and faith. So let's begin. Also I decided for this blog I will discuss some personal issues.


Ok let's first start with Karl barth. He thought that human beings had no way of having knowledge of God. That this is beyond comprehension beyond reason. That man cannot reason about God. The reason he thought this is because God is so other worldly so to speak. That since he transcends all creation he cannot possibly be comprehended by such lowly being as us. There is no way of knowing God on this view except by faith in Jesus Christ. Well I think this kinda ironic because if one cannot reason about God how did he reason that God can't be reasoned? Anyway to continue. That it is only through faith that one can have some knowledge of God. But even this knowledge is expiremental and not cognitive. That is to say that this knowledge does not come from within but is expirenced. That man since he is lost in sin does not have even the capacity to know God. So God has to come to him to confront him with the Word of God. He also argued that man cannot even take a leap of faith towards God. That since he is lost in sin it is impossible to take a leap of faith. So it is soley divine intervention that brings a person to knowledge of him. It is not man who choses God by his own spirit but it is God who choses man through the work of the Holy spirit. So if one were to ask how do we know if it is the word of God that comes to man and not a delusion. He would respond that such a question is meaningless. When the Word of God comes to man he is not free to reason or think only obey. So at the end he says that the authority of the Word of God is the foundation of religious belief. That is to say since the Word of God confronts man since it is God confronting man there is no way that could be false so it must be true that is really is God so one must obey.  Well I have so thoughts on this that I would like to discuss but I would have to formulate them coherently right now they are just some thoughts that need to be thought out reasonably. I think this might go against some doctrines.



Well let's talk Rodolfo (this guy has my uncle in law name). Well what did he think? Well his thinking matched perfectly with Karl's. They both think human apprehension of God is impossible except faith. He thought faith as not knowledge based on proof (such as thomas aquinas definition of faith). But he thought faith must be something uncertain and risky. Something one cannot be sure of. So he thought trying to prove Christianity is wrong is fatal because it will destroy faith. Well if asked how do we know the Word of God is true? He would respond on the basis of authority that the Word of God is true. On authority one has no need for reason or proofs the authority of the Word of God deems it superflous.

So in short both of these thinkers would have been authoritarians. They ultimately appeal to authority as the basis for religous belief. So that is it for that. Let's talk something I want to get off my chest.



Well I have been doing ok I suppose. Times are tough you know? The economic status of the U.S isn't great. Especially now that I have to take care of myself. I really need a job. Also I am a little love sick and trying to forget this girl I am in love with. But still she doesn't love me back so there is no point to continue to love her. I just want to forget her and move on with my life. But I can't it is so hard I feel if I move on I find out she has feelings for me and I lose her for ever. I mean she isn't the only one I know a lot of girls who like me and could easily go out with but none are like her though but I guess I am just being stupid ain't I? Ok that is enough for my personal life I will resume my demeanor and talk to you tomorrow!

Henry dodwell how do we know Christianity is true?

Well sorry I been busy but here I am. Well lets get started!


Henry thought was quite different from the prevailing dominant theological rationalism of John locke. He didn't think faith and reason could work together. That why would God would intend on having something as human reason to bring us to faith. That it is the job of the Holy spirit to do that right? He argued that we know Christianity is true on the basis of authority. Again we have heard this already. But he didn't base his authority on scripture but an the inner working faith of the Holy spirit. The Holy spirit witnesses that Christianity is true and therefore on the basis of the authority of the Holy spirit which comes from God who is truthful Christianity must be true. Well that is all he argued.  Next time we will discuss contemporary thinkers.

Different blog for today.

I would just like to make a evangelistic attempt to bring people to Christ. I really don't know how much people read this. I really hope at least a few though I know at least one person does I know that. But if you do thank you for doing so. Anyway I want to preach the Gospel for this blog. Well here it goes. Everyone on earth has sinned and all come short of God. Many of us consider ourselves to be good people. But our own standards are limited. God being ulimited has a much higher standard than ours to the status of perfection. So since we can't be like God we all come short of this perfect standard. No one can. We all have sinned. I am not saying we are murderers or theives but we all have sinned and come short of God's standards. The standards can't be kept so no matter what we do isn't God fault? Well I asked myself this question well but here is the thing it wasn't always like that. Man used to be sinless and was able to keep God standards. But man was tempted and fell into sin. Since sin was introduced into the world mankind could no longer keep God standards. It's not like we try to keep it anyway because most people just do as they please. Now everyone has sinned so everyone comes under God justice.


Since  God is just he must punish sin he cannot let it go unpunished. Even if we were able to stop sinning completely that still wouldn't help it doesn't changed the fact one sinned. It's like a murderer stopped killing people. It doesn't changed the fact he killed people and he must be punished. Well doesn't God forgive? Yes he does but even if God forgave us of our sins he still must punish those sins. Why because they were committed and must be paid for. For example let's you get in trouble with your mom and your ask for forgiveness. She forgive being a good mother and then she still punishes you. Why? Because even if she did forgive you she still has to punish what you did. So now what do we do? God forgives our sin but he can't just forget it something must take the full punishment of sin. That is why God sent Jesus Christ. He was perfect and blameless in all his ways. And he took the full weight of sin onto his hands. He was punished for our sins. So God forgives us and Jesus takes the blame making you free eternal life with God. Now if you recieve Christ into your heart and repent of your ways and follow him he will forgive you and grant you eternal life.



Ok that is the blog for today. Next time I will continue my series on how do we know Christianity is true?