Filter results by source database — Scripture Commentary, Theology, Mike Winger, or Pulpit. Click a tab to narrow to one database.

...more
All (452) Mike Winger (452)
Mike Winger idea 2018-10-31

Mike argues it is philosophically irrational to charge God with immorality because God’s character is the very grounding of moral goodness, making the question of whether God could do something immoral logically incoherent, analogous to asking if a circle could be a square.

Response to non-believer asking whether there is anything God could do that would lead Mike to consider him immoral

apologetics atheism moral argument
Mike Winger idea 2018-10-31

Mike closes the livestream, identifies his debate opponent as Paul from Paulogia on the Non-Sequitur Show, scheduled for Thursday at 5 p.m., and asks for prayers.

Final closing remarks

apologetics resurrection of Jesus debate
Mike Winger idea 2021-02-05

Psychological profile of apostles: they were not prone to hallucinations or delusion; even Anthony Flew called Paul a first-rate philosopher.

Fourth distinction: the mental/psychological credibility of the witnesses.

Acts 12 Paul the Apostle Hallucination theory Peter the Apostle
Mike Winger idea 2021-02-05

The gods of Egypt in Exodus 12:12: the plagues systematically judge the deified forces Egypt worshipped, demonstrating Israel's God controls all creation.

Question from Essoptron about the identity of the "gods of Egypt" in Exodus 12:12.

Exodus 12:12 Exodus 12:12 Ten Plagues of Egypt Egyptian gods
Mike Winger idea 2021-02-12

Free will is biblically assumed throughout Scripture — humans are treated as responsible agents making real choices

Continuing the free will answer, Mike argues that the assumption of free choice and moral responsibility permeates the entire biblical narrative.

atheism free will moral responsibility
Mike Winger idea 2021-02-19

Survey of interpretive views on Genesis 1-2: gap theory, day-age, young earth, progressive creation, Walton, Heiser, William Lane Craig

Mike surveys the major interpretive frameworks for Genesis 1-2 without committing to one.

Genesis 1-2 John Walton Genesis 1-2 Michael Heiser hermeneutics
Mike Winger idea 2020-12-04

Tips for an atheist starting to believe: gather intellectual reasons for God, practice spiritual disciplines, and make choices that shape belief.

Question from Emil Codrin about how to start believing after a lifetime of atheism.

Evidence for God Christopher Hitchens Spiritual disciplines
Mike Winger idea 2021-01-22

Religion as social control: a compliment, not a refutation

Summer Monsoon asked how to respond to the claim that religion is just a mechanism for social control and helps people cope with death.

Mormonism Islam resurrection
Mike Winger idea 2021-02-26

Non-negotiable Christian doctrines — essentials vs. secondary issues

DJ Diner asks what doctrines Christians should plant their flag on and never back down from.

Mormonism biblical inerrancy Trinity
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-05

Confirmation bias accusations are themselves prone to confirmation bias; fear of confirmation bias is not sufficient reason to disbelieve something

Responding to a young Christian worried that his theism might be confirmation bias given that most atheistic arguments seem like straw men and ad hominem

straw man argument apologetics atheism
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-05

Approaching a teenage atheist: dig for motives (often sin-related) rather than just arguments, in an environment of love

Advising a mother whose 16-year-old son has declared himself an atheist and can barely defend his position

youth ministry apologetics teenage atheism
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-26

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and responses to atheist objections about eternal energy and quantum vacuums.

Colin asks how to respond to atheist objections that energy could be infinite (eternal) and that quantum fluctuations could create a universe.

apologetics atheism William Lane Craig
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-26

Evangelizing family and close friends is uniquely difficult because familiarity breeds dismissal; redirecting to outside sources may be more effective.

Jackson Star asks how to reach atheist friends and family who do not take Christian arguments seriously.

Matthew 13:57 evangelism apologetics atheism
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-26

Isaiah's monotheistic declarations that God alone is Savior and Rock are not contradicted by Jesus being called Rock and Savior — Jesus is God.

Taylor Paris asks why Isaiah declares God knows of no other rock/savior while Jesus is called a rock.

Isaiah 40-48 John 1:3 Colossians 1:16 Trinity monotheism deity of Christ
Mike Winger idea 2021-04-23

The claim that Jesus was based on Jesus ben Ananias (from Josephus) is historically untenable given the robust bedrock consensus of historical facts about Jesus.

Q16 from Aaron Rampersad: what do you think about the claim that Jesus Christ was based on Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus's Jewish War?

Josephus apologetics Richard Carrier
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-12

Are the gods of other religions real? Three views: false polytheism, Heiserian divine council, and Pauline demonic identification

Q6 from Loretta Taylor: Numbers 33:3-4 says Yahweh executed judgments on Egypt's gods — does this mean gods like Allah and Zeus are real?

1 Corinthians 10:19-20 Numbers 33:3-4 Exodus plagues Michael Heiser elohim 1 Corinthians 10:19-20
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-12

Responding to online skeptics who call God evil and Christianity irrational: focus on one argument, watch for dumping tactics

Q9 from Dora Ashby: Skeptics say belief in God is irrational, that Christians must approve of rape and torture, and that God is evil. How to respond?

apologetics atheism debate strategy
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Kalam leads to God with biblical attributes via conceptual analysis

Continuation of the Kalam answer, explaining the conceptual analysis step.

Genesis 1 Hebrews 11 John 1:1 Genesis 1 Hebrews 11 John 1:1
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Should Christians be shaken by brilliant atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy?

Listener Silas Abrahamson says he is sometimes shaken that brilliant philosophers like Graham Oppy are atheists.

Apologetics Atheism Graham Oppy
Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Sharing Jesus with children when an atheist spouse objects

Listener Sheila is a new believer; her atheist husband does not want her sharing Jesus with their daughter because the daughter will think he's going to hell.

Acts 5:29 Acts 5:29 Atheism Religious liberty in marriage
Mike Winger idea 2021-04-30

Psalm 82 gods (elohim) most likely refers to earthly rulers ironically addressed as divine beings, not literal supernatural deities.

Question 10 from RaHR17 about who the gods in Psalm 82 are; engages Michael Heiser's divine council worldview.

1 Samuel 28 John 10 Psalm 82 Michael Heiser 1 Samuel 28 John 10
Mike Winger idea 2021-04-30

Christians can hold various views on Genesis 1 and the Big Bang; the Big Bang is actually strong evidence for God.

Question 11 from J James about whether the Big Bang is biblical.

Genesis 1 Genesis 1 creation ex nihilo Big Bang
Mike Winger idea 2021-04-30

The gospel presentation should be adapted to the individual; the content stays constant but the approach changes.

Question 13 from Steph T about how to summarize the gospel with strangers or those from different religions.

Acts 17 Paul Acts 17 evangelism
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Mike Winger introduces the livestream on evidence for God's existence, framing it as a resource video covering one strong argument simply, then in detail, then defending against objections.

Introduction to the Kalam cosmological argument livestream

apologetics evidence for God apologetics
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

The Kalam conclusion (the universe has a cause) doesn't mention God explicitly, but the conceptual analysis that always follows leads to theistic conclusions about the nature of that cause.

Relationship between the formal argument and conceptual analysis

Kalam cosmological argument Kalam cosmological argument conceptual analysis
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection to Premise 1: "Who made God?" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion). Response: the premise says whatever BEGINS to exist needs a cause, not whatever EXISTS needs a cause.

Objection — who made God? (Dawkins)

Richard Dawkins who made God infinite regress
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection to Premise 1: the composition fallacy — just because every part of the universe has a cause doesn't mean the whole does. Response: this misunderstands the argument; it's about a CLASS of things (things that begin to exist), not parts composing a whole.

Objection — composition fallacy (Cosmic Skeptic)

Kalam cosmological argument Cosmic Skeptic Kalam cosmological argument
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Nothing means NOT ANYTHING — no possibilities, no properties, no potentialities. Some atheist physicists (Lawrence Krauss) equivocate by treating "nothing" as a quantum vacuum with energy, gravity, and space.

Clarifying what "nothing" means

William Lane Craig William Lane Craig Lawrence Krauss
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection: the argument doesn't mention God, so it's irrelevant. Response: the Kalam is always the beginning of a case, not the end — it forces you into the conceptual analysis that points to God.

Objection — God not mentioned in the argument

Kalam cosmological argument Kalam cosmological argument conceptual analysis
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection: this only gets you to generic theism, not the Christian God. Response: each attribute (spaceless, timeless, etc.) was justified, not ad hoc; the Kalam is meant to be followed by evidence for the resurrection to identify the God.

Objection — doesn't prove the Christian God

Kalam cosmological argument cumulative case apologetics Kalam cosmological argument
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: Is it okay to mock atheists? Mike and Braxton both lean toward cordial conversation. Mockery has a legitimate place biblically but easily leads to responding "in the flesh." Most people aren't discerning enough to mock wisely.

Q&A — mocking atheists

apologetics apologetics mocking opponents
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: The Kalam's premises can be confirmed — an infinite past is philosophically untenable, and universal human experience confirms that things beginning to exist have causes with zero counterexamples.

Q&A — can the Kalam premises be confirmed?

Matt Dillahunty Kalam cosmological argument Cosmic Skeptic
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Closing: Mike encourages viewers who are convinced to start seeking God, praying, and paying attention to Christ. He promotes Braxton Hunter's YouTube channel as a resource for apologetics.

Closing exhortation and promotion

evidence for God evidence for God Braxton Hunter
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Mike Winger introduces a panel response to Genetically Modified Skeptic's video "4 Questions That Could Make You an Atheist," joined by Braxton Hunter, Cameron Bertuzzi, and John McCrae.

Introduction — response to Genetically Modified Skeptic

John McCrae apologetics apologetics Cameron Bertuzzi
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew's Question 1: Why did God communicate through literature? Literature demands interpretation, leading to contradictory sects and suffering (e.g., JW blood transfusions). If God couldn't do better, he's not omnipotent; if he didn't know, not omniscient; if he didn't care, not omni-benevolent.

Presenting Drew's argument — literature and the problem of evil

problem of evil problem of evil trilemma
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Braxton responds: even if Drew's point succeeded, it wouldn't lead to atheism — at most it would adjust your concept of God. The video's title ("make you an atheist") overstates the stakes. Drew's argument mirrors Epicurus' logical argument from evil, which is too ambitious.

Response to Q1 — Drew's argument doesn't lead to atheism

problem of evil problem of evil trilemma
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Fourth option: written literature is the BEST medium for communicating detailed, specific information that can be preserved, studied in community, and shared worldwide. Other communication methods (prophets, dreams, miracles) are either also subject to interpretation, subjective, or lack specificity.

Response to Q1 — written text as optimal communication

1 Corinthians 12:12 1 Corinthians 12:27 Mark 12:30-31 hermeneutics hermeneutics divine communication
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

John McCrae adds: our sin nature explains interpretive divergence — we read preferences into Scripture. The Bible calls us to strive for truth (narrow gate), which makes the relationship with Christ richer. Drew's question is really just the problem of evil focused on one aspect.

Additional response to Q1 — sin nature and striving

John McCrae hermeneutics hermeneutics sin nature
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Cameron Bertuzzi identifies that Drew conflates suffering with unjustified suffering. The real burden is showing the suffering is unjustified, which Drew assumes but doesn't argue. Questions are not arguments — you must defend premises, not just state conclusions.

Additional response to Q1 — unjustified vs justified suffering

Cameron Bertuzzi justified suffering questions are not arguments
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

The JW blood transfusion example actually comes from Watchtower proclamations, not biblical interpretation. John notes the Bible's manuscript tradition makes it more reliable than modern media like video. Even supernatural direct knowledge could still be questioned by skeptics.

Additional response to Q1 — JW example and textual reliability

textual criticism textual criticism Watchtower
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew's Question 2: Shouldn't you worship the cruelest God imaginable? If Pascal's wager is about maximizing reward and minimizing punishment, inventing a maximally cruel God improves the wager by creating a true dichotomy.

Presenting Drew's argument — Pascal's wager and cruelest God

false dichotomy Genetically Modified Skeptic Pascals wager
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Mike responds with three problems: (1) Drew misrepresents Pascal's wager as "believe whatever promises the most" — Pascal actually included evidential evaluation; (2) modern proponents like Michael Rota and Liz Jackson pair evidence with the wager; (3) Pascal's wager is decision theory, not blind gambling.

Response to Q2 — Pascal's wager is misrepresented

Pascals wager decision theory Michael Rota
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew's false dichotomy objection fails because Pascal's wager can be constructed to meet people where they are. If someone is between Christianity and atheism specifically, it's not a false dichotomy — it's their actual situation. Drew also inadvertently grants theism when proposing alternative gods.

Response to Q2 — false dichotomy and evidential grounding

false dichotomy Pascals wager
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew's arbitrary cruel God is defeated by evidence: Christianity has historical verification, prophecy, testimony, and wasn't made up on the spot. A maximally cruel God would send everyone to hell with no heaven, giving no reason to worship. This is the "Pascal's mugger" objection, already addressed in literature.

Response to Q2 — arbitrary claims vs evidenced claims

evidence for God evidence for God Pascals wager
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Cameron adds: Michael Rota's avarice objection response — the wager need not be self-interested; one might commit to God out of desire to avoid disappointing God, to grow morally, or out of moral duty. Rota's drowning child analogy: even at 50/50, the stakes justify commitment.

Additional response to Q2 — avarice objection and drowning child analogy

Cameron Bertuzzi Michael Rota Taking Pascals Wager
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew's Question 3: Why did God create animals with pain receptors? John McCrae responds: (1) animals don't experience pain "exactly the same" as humans — they lack equivalent emotional/psychological pain; (2) pain is necessary for survival; (3) "psychological trauma" in animals is overstated (sloth bear eating its own cubs, chimps killing young).

Response to Q3 — animal pain

John McCrae John McCrae anthropomorphism animal suffering
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew claims God demanded animal sacrifice because he enjoyed it. John corrects: OT sacrifice was for atonement, an act of mercy, not divine enjoyment. Genesis 1:29-30 shows God originally created a vegetarian food chain — the current system results from the Fall. Drew ignores that Christianity's purpose isn't a pain-free temporal life.

Response to Q3 — sacrifice and the Fall

Genesis 1:29-30 the Fall animal suffering Genesis 1:29-30
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew claims religious people invented doctrines to morally justify killing animals. John turns this around: on Drew's evolutionary morality, survival-promoting beliefs ARE morality — so religion doing this would be moral by his own framework. Also, most non-religious people eat meat too, so religion isn't the explanation.

Response to Q3 — evolutionary morality is self-defeating

animal suffering evolutionary morality
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Christianity would be the worst survival-promoting religion if it were invented for that purpose — it teaches loving enemies, not retaliating, turning the other cheek. Early Christians were pacifists for 300 years. This contradicts the "made up for survival" hypothesis.

Response to Q3 — Christianity is anti-survival by design

1 Peter 2:21-23 evolutionary morality early church pacifism 1 Peter 2:21-23
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Cameron and Mike discuss animal suffering as a serious philosophical problem, but note: (1) atheism offers no solution to suffering at all, (2) Christianity promises resolution (Isaiah 11 — wolf lies down with lamb), (3) Stephen Wykstra's no-see-um principle: we wouldn't expect to perceive overarching goods from specific instances of suffering.

Animal suffering — atheism vs Christianity

Isaiah 11 problem of evil problem of evil skeptical theism
← Prev Page 7 of 10 Next →