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

...more
All (5484) Mike Winger (5484)
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Abstract objects like numbers are timeless and immaterial but lack causal powers; a mind fits the criteria of being spaceless, timeless, non-material, AND capable of causing something.

Conceptual analysis — why the cause is a mind

abstract objects conceptual analysis causal powers
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

The conceptual analysis points toward a spaceless, timeless, non-material, incredibly powerful, exceedingly wise mind — matching what Jews and Christians have always understood from Genesis 1:1.

Conceptual analysis — conclusion

Genesis 1:1 Kalam cosmological argument Genesis 1:1 Kalam cosmological argument
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

The Kalam cosmological argument stated formally: Premise 1 — whatever begins to exist must have a cause; Premise 2 — the universe began to exist; Conclusion — the universe has a cause.

Formal presentation of the Kalam syllogism

syllogism William Lane Craig William Lane Craig
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

Timeless beings don't have beginnings or endings — these are temporal concepts. God, existing timelessly, doesn't need a cause. This also rules out pagan deities and the Mormon concept of God.

Who made God — continued; ruling out non-eternal deities

Mormonism Mormonism timelessness
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: quantum physics shows things can come into existence uncaused. Response: quantum events are not truly uncaused or from nothing; the quantum vacuum is something, not nothing.

Objection — quantum physics

quantum vacuum quantum physics Stephen Hawking
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Isaac Asimov memorial panel discussion: Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson debated "what is nothing" for two hours. The philosopher on the panel was visibly frustrated, saying nothing means NOT ANYTHING.

Anecdote — philosophers vs. physicists on "nothing"

Lawrence Krauss Lawrence Krauss nothing vs not anything
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection: the multiverse avoids the need for God. Response: everything said about our universe needing a cause applies equally to the multiverse — you're just kicking the can back.

Objection — multiverse

Matt Dillahunty Kalam cosmological argument Carl Sagan
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection to Premise 2: maybe the universe is infinite in the past. Response: an actually infinite past is impossible — you could never traverse infinite moments to arrive at the present.

Objection — infinite past

infinite past traversal of infinity JP Moreland
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection to the conclusion: equivocation between material cause and efficient cause in the premises vs. conclusion. Response: both premises and conclusion refer to efficient causation.

Objection — equivocation on "cause"

equivocation fallacy material vs efficient cause
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: the cause could be a teacup orbiting Saturn or universe-creating pixies instead of God. Response: they're just describing God's attributes and labeling it something else; Occam's razor reduces pixies to one being.

Objection — teacup/pixies

Matt Dillahunty conceptual analysis Occams razor
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection: this is just a God-of-the-gaps argument. Response: the Kalam provides POSITIVE evidence for what the cause is, not merely an appeal to ignorance.

Objection — God of the gaps

evidence for God evidence for God God of the gaps
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Objection: what if science one day explains the universe without God? Response: Christians welcome continued scientific inquiry; this objection is "naturalism of the gaps" — hoping naturalism will eventually explain it with no current evidence.

Objection — future science

William Lane Craig methodological naturalism William Lane Craig
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Why the cause must be PERSONAL: (1) a mind uniquely fits spaceless/timeless/immaterial yet has causal powers, (2) state-event causation from timelessness requires a decision to act, (3) absence of determinism in nothingness requires libertarian free will.

Why the cause is a personal agent

determinism determinism causal powers
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

Classical apologetics typically combines the Kalam with design arguments and a moral argument (showing God has moral principles and loves people), building a cumulative case before presenting Christ.

Cumulative case approach

moral argument design argument Kalam cosmological argument
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: John 8:1-11 (woman caught in adultery) is very likely a true story/memory of Jesus but probably not originally part of John's Gospel. It appears in different locations in manuscripts. Most translations bracket it.

Q&A — John 8:1-11 textual criticism

Mark 16:9-20 John 8:1-11 textual criticism textual criticism Mark 16:9-20
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: A sermon claiming that struggling with addiction or fearing hell means you're not a Christian is unbiblical. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for sin without denying their faith; 1 John 4:18 says fear indicates incomplete realization of God's love, not absence of salvation.

Q&A — addiction and assurance of salvation

1 John 4:18 1 John 3:20 assurance of salvation assurance of salvation 1 John 4:18
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: How to test if a financial blessing is from God. Look at whether it came through godliness, follow biblical prayer principles (asking in God's will, not selfish motives), and use money to seek God's kingdom first.

Q&A — financial blessings and stewardship

prayer prayer financial stewardship
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: Revelation 21:1-2 and time in heaven. Heaven will involve time — months, sequential experiences — in physical resurrected bodies in the new creation. "Time will be no more" is poetic for everlasting, not literal timelessness.

Q&A — time in heaven (Revelation 21-22)

Revelation 21:1-2 Revelation 22:1-2 new heaven and new earth William Lane Craig physical resurrection
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: An infinite universe causing our universe in a "bounce" still faces the same problems — an infinite past of cycles can't be traversed, and a meta-timeline outside ours would need its own cause.

Q&A — cyclical/bounce universe models

multiverse infinite past cyclical universe models
Mike Winger idea 2020-02-12

Q&A: When a Christian feels static in their walk, the answer is to fall in love with Jesus again rather than legalistically checking boxes. Pray for increased love and dedication; remember first works (Revelation 2, Ephesus).

Q&A — spiritual stagnation

Revelation 2 (Ephesus) first love Revelation 2 (Ephesus) spiritual stagnation
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

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
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Cameron responds: 3 of 4 questions are really just versions of the problem of evil. Questions are not arguments — they require structured premises and conclusions. Cameron identifies three goods requiring earthly existence before heaven.

Response to Q4 — questions aren't arguments

problem of evil Cameron Bertuzzi problem of evil
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Good #1: Freely choosing to enter a loving relationship with God is a great good — a love potion analogy shows forced love isn't real love. Good #2: Alvin Plantinga's supralapsarianism theodicy — the Incarnation and atonement (Christ dying for those who hate him) is among the greatest conceivable acts of love, only possible in a world with sin.

Response to Q4 — goods requiring earth (love and atonement)

free will Alvin Plantinga free will
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Good #3: Soul-building theodicy — suffering provides opportunities to develop character virtues (sacrifice, courage, compassion, forgiveness). Good #4: Robin Collins' connection-building theodicy — virtuous responses to evil create valuable relationships that grow infinitely over time.

Response to Q4 — soul-building and connection-building

theodicy theodicy soul-building theodicy
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

Drew repeatedly says "there's another option: God isn't real" — but easy explanations aren't necessarily good explanations. The tri-omni concept doesn't "fall apart under momentary consideration" — the problem requires more than momentary consideration.

Response to Q4 — easy vs good explanations

theodicy theodicy Genetically Modified Skeptic
Mike Winger idea 2020-01-08

The panelists stress that responses to atheist content are meant to open conversation, not tear people down. YouTube is an uncharted mission field. Apologists should collaborate rather than compete.

Closing — collaborative apologetics

John McCrae Cameron Bertuzzi John McCrae David Wood
← Prev Page 82 of 110 Next →