• Home
  • About Me
  • Blog
    • Apologetics
    • Atheism
    • Bible
    • Devotion
    • Church
    • Evangelism
    • Hiddenness of God
    • Leadership
    • Philosophy
    • Religious Pluralism
    • Science and Faith
    • Theology
  • My Books
  • Video
  • Talks
  • Invite Me
No Result
View All Result
Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry
  • Home
  • About Me
  • Blog
    • Apologetics
    • Atheism
    • Bible
    • Devotion
    • Church
    • Evangelism
    • Hiddenness of God
    • Leadership
    • Philosophy
    • Religious Pluralism
    • Science and Faith
    • Theology
  • My Books
  • Video
  • Talks
  • Invite Me
No Result
View All Result
Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry
No Result
View All Result

Responding to Objections 4: “Couldn’t this be explained by . . .”

December 30, 2017

ID-10041893

In my prior post I mentioned that for many skeptics of religion, the starting point for all inquiry is naturalism. Nature is all there is. There is no God or gods or spiritual realm.

And further: all events have a natural explanation , or at least potentially so. Ghosts, magic, miracles, voodoo, etc. — all will be debunked, now or in the future.

But of course naturalism is just one of several possible starting points. Let’s compare naturalism with its chief competitor, theism:

1. Naturalism: Holds to the principle that science can (or will) explain everything. Naturalists believe this is the only rational starting point for investigation of the world.

2. Theism: Says that the existence of the world and its basic properties can be best explained with God as a starting point.

Notice in #2 that God hasn’t been proven. That’s OK. #2 assumes God, just like #1 assumes naturalism. Both are unproven assumptions. Both are “starting points.”

A concrete example: A woman named Miriam experiences instantaneous healing of a severe skin rash in a prayer service.

The skeptic says,  “Miriam’s ‘miraculous’ healing can and should be explained by natural causes.”

The believer says, “Miriam’s miraculous healing is best explained by the hand of God.”

So far, it’s a draw.

But if theism provides a better overall understanding of the world than does naturalism, then God is a better explanation for this healing than unaided natural forces.

So the question becomes whether theism can live up to its claim of “best explanation.” I’ll say something about that in my next post.

Image courtesy of Digitalart at FreeDigitalphotos.net

Share120Tweet75
Rick Mattson

Rick Mattson

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About Me

Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry

Rick Mattson

Evangelist & Writer

Hello & welcome to my blog! My name is Rick Mattson and I'm a traveling evangelist/apologist.

SUBSCRIBE! You'll be notified by email whenever a new post comes out
Loading

Categories

  • Apologetics (152)
  • Atheism (47)
  • Bible (32)
  • Church (67)
  • Devotion (102)
  • Evangelism (52)
  • Hiddenness of God (9)
  • Leadership (65)
  • Philosophy (7)
  • Religious Pluralism (14)
  • Science and Faith (3)
  • Theology (1)

Popular

  • Apologetics for Kids

    Apologetics for Kids

    327 shares
    Share 131 Tweet 82
  • Tradition as a Guardrail

    326 shares
    Share 130 Tweet 82
  • Muslim Dialogue

    307 shares
    Share 123 Tweet 77
  • Objective Truth is Back

    306 shares
    Share 122 Tweet 77
  • What I’m Working On: Part 1 of 3: Inside-to-Out

    306 shares
    Share 122 Tweet 77
Facebook Twitter

© 2022 Site by 5BCreative

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Me
  • Blog
    • Apologetics
    • Atheism
    • Bible
    • Devotion
    • Church
    • Evangelism
    • Hiddenness of God
    • Leadership
    • Philosophy
    • Religious Pluralism
    • Science and Faith
    • Theology
  • My Books
  • Video
  • Talks
  • Invite Me