Apologetics Notes
Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia
Apologia means “well-reasoned reply”
Apologetics involves making a case for the truth of the Christian faith.
Apologetics is not apologizing.
It is not relying on just your faith when you are confronted with difficult questions or challenging circumstances.
Apologetics is to help equip believers to defend their faith
Apologetics can help evangelize unbelievers. Evangelism involves sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with those who do not believe. Apologetics is involved with this task.
Engaging Culture. As Christians, we are called to play a role in shaping culture by speaking the truth wherever god places us.
Knowing why you believe something pays huge dividends when you are attempting to share what you believe with others. By being able to provide well-reasoned answers to difficult questions that skeptics ask, you will feel a greater sense of confidence when sharing your faith, and your presentation of the gospel will likely come across in a more convincing manner.
Being trained in apologetics will help you keep the faith through seasons of doubt and difficulty. It will also allow you to help others when they experience times like this. If a Christian is trained in the field of apologetics, they will be able to more effectively stand without wavering in their faith while also helping others do the same.
Apologetics is a means by which the way is both prepared and protected so that the message of the gospel can properly be presented. Apologetics is like the soldier who battles to protect the messenger who has the gospel to deliver. The evangelist should know the basics of apologetics, which include knowledge of doctrinal questions, issues of morality, truth, other religions, etc.
The practice of apologetics adds credibility to the speaker, helps provide the right to speak the gospel to the crowd; in other words, it helps the listeners to receive what the evangelist is saying because their minds aren’t turned away by the speaker’s perceived incompetence, and it quiets the objectors.
The role of apologetics is to be subservient to the preaching of the gospel. It is the practice of preparing the listener to be more able to receive the truth of God’s word in the presentation of the saving gospel of Christ. Apologetics is not the power of god to save. Christians are to keep themselves unstained from the culture, not remove themselves from it. There are six commitments Christians should make
commitment to study the bible
commitment to live the bible by relying on the holy spirit
commitment to prayer
commitment to study the culture
commitment to build relationships
commitment to evangelism and discipleship
Apologetics involves knowing why you believe what you believe and being able to give a defense to unbelievers, which is a way that we show god that we love him with all our minds.
By thinking deeply about the tough questions related to the Christian faith and by searching diligently for reasons why you believe what you believe as a christian, you are showing got that you love him with all your mind
six ways jesus used apologetics
testimony - jesus appeals to the testimony of others in order to verify his claims to be the Son of God
miracles - jesus uses miracles as proof that he really is who he claims to be
prophecy - jesus’ fulfillment of messianic prophecies from the old testamnet, and his ability to make predictions of his own that come to pass are proof that he is divine
reason - jesus appeals to logic
parables - an implicit way jesus makes claims to deity is found in parables, or stories, that he tells throughout the gospels.
discourse - jesus makes explicit claims to deity through cedrtain authoritative speeches.
pauls usage of apologetics
paul defended the gospel through his writings
you are involved in numerous conversations throughout the day, some of whihc provide opportunities to use what you are learning about apologetics. perhaps you could use apologetics to encourage a fellow believer who is going through a difficult time or doubting their faith. one of the most powerful ways to use apologetics is simply living out what you say you believe as a christian.
while on his second missionary journey paul preached an apologetic message in greece to the people ar Mars Hill. throughout his message he used the following tactics related to apologetics. paul found common ground with his audience; they all believed some sort of religion. paul argued based upon facts that could be investigated. paul stated that jesus’ historicity, particularly the resurrectoin, is the foundatin of christianity.
peter’s usage of aologetics
on the day of pentecost, god used peter to lead three thousand people to faith in jesus. although the reason for this mass conversion should be attributed to the pourigng out of the holy spirit upon all who were in attendace, it should be noted that peter preached a message filled with apologetic tactics on this day.
throughout his sermon in acts 2, peter presents at least three pieces of evidence to convince the crowd that jesus is god.
he appeals to the miracles of jesus as proof that he is from god
he appeals to fulfilled prophecy as proof that jesus is the proised messiah
he appeals to eyewitness accounts of jesus’ resurrection as proof that he is the son of god
peter 3:15 teaches us different things
one way we honr chirst is by always being prepared to make a defense
we ought to always be prepared which means we have to equip ourselves ahead of time so that we are prepared when in a situation where we are required to defend our faith
we must alwasy strive to present our case for christianity with gentleness adn respect. remember what you learned in a previous lesson about how your actions play a huge role when it comes to defending your faith.
two types of apologetics
offensive and defensive
offensive apologetics
rather than waiting for someone to attack and then defend, offensive apologetics involves going on the attack by seeking out those who oppose the christian faith
if in a conversation with a skeptic and the christian becomes angry, then he or she will only cause the skeptic to become angry and will likely push the skeptic away altogether. the goal ought to keep anyone from getting angry.
defensive apologetics
a key component of defensive apologetics involves knowing what questions those who oppose christianity might ask and how to answer them persuasively
who can use apologetics?
apologetics cannot be used by everyone. there are two qualifications that an individual must have before he or she can begin engaging skeptics in conversations related to apologetics
he or she must be saved. saved is a christian term that refers to someone who has made the decision to accept jesus christ into his or her life as lord and savior. only those who have been saved can use apologetics.
the second qualification that an idividual must have to begin using apologetics is that they must be spirit filled. spirit-filled refers to someone who has been saved, but also one who is seeking god throught he study of scripture and prayer and is therefore filled with the holy spirit.
where can apologetics be used?
Your family. your church. your school
Definition of truth
rather than ignoring the truth like Pilate, we must strive to discover what truth is so that we can live accoring to what is best for our lives. Although there are numerous definitions and interpretations of what truth is the best is, truth is that which corresponds to reality (the way things really are).
what truth is not
10 misconceptions about truth
1) truth is not a matter of personal opinion.
if truth was a matter of personal opinion, then truth would be different for everyone.
2) truth is not a matter of individual preference
if truth was a matter of individual preference, then truth would differ for each person without one ultimate standard of truth that applied to everyone.
3) truth is not simply whatever works
oftentimes truth does work, but just because something works doesnt make it true.
4) truth is not just what makes people feel good about themselves
5) truth is not based upon emotions
emotions frequently change throughout the day. if truth is based upon emotions, then truth would be ever-changing and different for every person depending upon how they feel in a given moment. this view leads to an unstable words where virtually everything becomes permissible as long as you feel it is thr right thing to do.
6) truth is not always what the majority says
there are countless examples throughout history where the majority got it wrong.
7) truth is not always waht is comprehensive
oftentimes people provide length, detailed explanations in order to make something sound convincing .
8) truth is not always what is understandable or coherent
9) truth is not merely what is believed
10) truth is not always politically correct or socially acceptable
The importance of truth
A person’s view on truth impacts their beliefs, and their beliefs impact their actions.
four things truth does
1) truth explains reality (the way things really are)
the world in which we live is an amazing place that has been carefully crafted by our creator as a way of revealing his glory. despite the grandeur of the planted upin which we live, we recognize that things are clearly not as they ought to be; something has gone awry. without truth, we wouldn’t be able to make sense of the world in which we live or explain why things are the way they are.
2) Truth gives us a solid foundation to stand upon
A house without a solid foundation will collapse over time. in the same way, if we do not build out lives upon the rock-solid foundation of truth, our lives will likewise crumble. one of the things we need most in life is something firm upon which to stand.
3) truth shows us what is right
while walking through the woods at night, a flashlight shows you the best path to take in order to avoid running into trees, stepping into holes, or falling into a deep ravine. similarly, while we are journeying though life, truth shows us the right way tog o and keeps us from straying off the path and getting lost.
4) truth corrects us when we are wrong
As we are walking down the path of life, sometimes we stray from the path and need to be redirected. This is the role that truth plays in our lives; it corrects us when we are wrong.
how can truth be known?
how can we know whats true?
the truth cannot be invented, it must be discovered.
a “truth claim” is a statement that a particular person of belief system holds to be true. it is merely a hypothesis that hasnt yet been varified by logic, evidence and/or eperience. throughout history, numerous individuals and various belief systems have made truth claims.
how can we investigate truth claims?
1) does it make sense?
is it logically consistent? are there any contradictions within the truth claim?
2) is there evidence for it?
how much evidence is available? is the evidence reliable? does the available evidence support it?
3) does it work irl
does it correspond with the way things are irl? is it livable?
how should we respond to truth?
1) we should continually seek it
we should continually search for truth in all matters. since the scriptures contain god’s revealed truth to us, we ought to determine what god says first
if we abide in gods word, like jesus says, we will know the truth and the truth will set us free.
2) we should cherish it above all else
jesus is the embodiment of truth and is full of truth. because he is truth, we should cherish him above all else and look to him at the source of truth.
3) we should allow it to determine the way we live our lives
if what we believe to be true doesnt affect the way we live our ives, then we don’t truly believe it. 1 john 1:6 “if we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice truth.”
4) we should rely upon it when making decisions
when making decisions, we should rely upon god for guidance because he is the source of truth and he will never lead us astray. The person who places his trust in humans is like a shrub in the desert that withers away, but a person who places his trust in god is like a tree planted by water that flourishes. when we are unsure about a looming decision, we should ask god for direction.
5) we should confront those who are living in opposition to it.
we dont truly love someone if we remain silent or lie to them; we love someone when we “speak the truth in love” to them.
6) we should boldly proclaim it
rather than keeping truth to ourselves, we should boldly proclaim it all over the world, beginning with where god has places us in the present. in other words, begin sharing truth with your friends and family members, as well as with others in your community.
Absolutism
When it comes to how truth is viewed there are two main camps in which people fall into. the first camp maintains that truth is absolute. the second camp suggests that truth is relative. By absolute truth it means that is something is true, then it is true for all people, in all places, at all times. relative truth means that if something is true for one person or society, then it is not necissarily true for other individuals or societies. albolutists believe that truth never changes and relativists believe that truth frequently changes.
Special Revelation
special revelation means that god has revealed the truth in the person of jesus christ, by the holy spirit, or through the word of god.
General Revelation
general revalation means that god has revealed the truth through creation and in the conscience.
Characteristics of Absolute Truth
Truth is knowable, absolute, never changes, and endures forever. things are true regardless of our perspective. something can be true even if no one knows it, admits it, agrees with it, follows it, or fully grasps it.
Societal Relativism
Also referred to as cultural relativism, is the view that truth is ultimately established by the society in which an individual lives. What is right in one society may be considered wrong in another and, since no universal standard or morality exists, no one can judge another society’s morality or lack thereof.
Characteristics of Societal Relativism
Truth is determined by what the majority of a particular society says, is unknowable in an ultimate sense (because different societies have different views of truth), differs from one society to the next, changes frequently. society decides what is right and wrong and what one society says is right, another may say is wrong. all societies are of equal value, which means that one society cannot look down upon another society.
Individual Relativism
is the view that truth is ultimately determined by the individual. what is right in one persons eyes may be considered wrong in another persons eyes and since no universal standard of morality exists, then no one has the right to judge another persons morality or lack thereof. individual relativism is characterized by statements like
“that may be right for you, but it isnt for me.”
“thats just your view; mine is different”
“thats just your opinion i have a different opinion’
“no one can tell me how to live my life”
i am my own authority
it doesnt matter what you believe because all beliefs are equally valid
Characteristics of Individual Relativism
Truth is constructed by mans ideas, opinoins, and feelings. furthermore, truth is unknowable, different for every person,a dn changes frequently. individuals decide what is right and wrong and what one person says is right another might say is wrong. one persons view of truth is no truer or better than another persons, therefore, one person cannot look down upon another person.
Problems with Societal Relativism
problem 1 - there is more than one society in our world, how are we to know which one we should obey?
problem 2 - there is no such thing as an immoral law. if a society is the ultimate authority on moral issues, then all its judgments are moral by definition.
Problem 3 - those who have tried to reform corrupt societies are actually criminals of the worst kind.
Problems with Individual Relativism
Problem 1 - relativists cant say “youre wrong”
Problem 2 - relavists cant call something “good” or “bad”
problem 3 - relativsts cant place blame or accept praise
problem 4 - relavists cant make the claim, “thats not fair”
problem 5 - relavists cant improve upon their morality
problem 6 - relavists cant hold meaningful discussions about morality
problem 7 - relavists cant say “you need to stop being intolerant of other views!”
problem 8 - relavists cant complain about being mistreated
Refuting relativism
Tactic 1)
Relativist: "That's true for you, but not for me." Response: "Are you assuming the following statement to be universally true: 'Something can be true for one person and not for another?" It seems you think it applies to everyone's belief system except yours. If that statement is only true for you, then I see no reason to think it applies to me."
Relativist: "You shouldn't force your morality on me." Response: "Why not?" (Someone can't explain why you shouldn't impose your views on him without imposing his views on you.)
Relativist: "Who are you to say?" Response: "Who are you to say, 'Who are you to say?'" (Someone can't challenge your right to correct another without correcting you.)
Relativist: "There's no such thing as absolute truth." Response: "Is that statement absolutely true?" (By making this statement, relativists are actually proving that absolute truth exists.)
Relativist: "You can't know anything for sure." Response: "How do you know you can't know anything for sure?" (You have to know something for sure in order to know that you can't know something for sure.)
Relativist: "That's just your opinion/view." Response: "'It's all a matter of opinion' is actually a truth-claim, the opposite of which is alleged to be false. 'It's all a matter of opinion' isn't just a matter of opinion. Shouldn't some opinions be rejected for being clearly evil and/or obviously false?" (Usually when someone dismisses your view as opinion, they think that their opinion is true while yours is false.)
Relativist: "You can't judge me!" Response: "What do you mean by 'judging?'" If the person responds with, "Telling someone else they are wrong," then the relativist is "judging" someone else: you. The relativist is saying you're wrong for saying someone else is wrong, which is "judging."
Relativist: "Stop being intolerant!" Response: "What do you mean by intolerance?" If they respond with, "You're not being accepting of another person's beliefs," then gently respond by saying, "But you likewise aren't being accepting of my position. You think I'm wrong. Are you being intolerant?"
Relativist: "It's arrogant to say your values are better than others." Response: "Are you saying, 'It's always wrong for anyone anywhere to be arrogant?'" (If the relativist answers "yes," then they have identified a universal moral standard, which is the very thing they deny exists.)
Tactic 2)
Explain a theoretical world where relativism is true. in other words, take the view to its logical conclusion. withing a world where relativism is true, there would be no justice, fairness, accountability, good or evil, right or wrong, praise or blame, tolerance, meaningful moral conversations, or moral improvements
The Three A’s
Assumptions - In order to uncover someones hidden assumptions, ask yourself the question, “What is the person smuggling into the argument or conversation without directly stating it?”
Arguments - the ultimate goal of analyzing an argument is to determine whether the argument is true or untrue, valid or invalid. ask yourself the question, “is the person’s argument valid or invalid?”
Authorities - an authority is someone or something that a person appeals to in an argument in order to “settle it”. to help determine which authority a person is using in their argument, as this “what or whom does the person appeal to in order to settle it?”
MODULE THREE ANALYSIS PAPER!!!!!
Select one of these questions to address
discuss the biblical basis for the task of apologetics
explain how jesus used apologetics throughout his earthly ministry
explain the differences between the three conflicting views of truth (absolutism, societal relativism, and individual relativism)
Explain the defintion of absolute truth and its importance in our culture
explain how to analyze arguments using the “three A’s”
Assignment Requirements
The assignment should be a minimum of three pages to cover the topic adequately. Submit your essay as a word document.
Introduce the question clearly and provide a strong thesis for your position on the answer. The content paragraphs must address the question and provide clarity for your position. Your conclusion should sum up your argument and support your thesis
Various outside sources should be used to research, answer, and substantiate your position. all sources must be correctly cited to avoid plagiarism. your position and justification should be made in your own words.
MLA format.
Elements of Assumption
Assumptions are present within all arguments. They are necessary. An argument cannot be constructed without assuming at least a few things
Assumptions can be either good or bad, true or untrue
Assumptions are not usually stated verbally. Rather, they are implicit
Assumptions are what is “smuggled” into an argument
Assumptions are ideas or statements that are assumed to be true. the person doing the arguing usually doesnt try to prove his or her assumptions, but the person listening to the argument can disprove them
Tips to better identify assumptions
identify the main point that the person is trying to make
listen very carefully
identify the reasons that the person gives to prove the main point
look for hidden reasons
ask a lot of questions.
Three Questions to Ask
1) What point are you trying to make?
2) Why do you believe your point is valid
3)Are there any hidden premises being used
three primary questions to ask when analyzing arguments
1) what is the argument being presented?
in order to understand the scope of ones argument identify the conclusion and premises.
2) Is there any evidence to support the premises, or are they merely assumptions?
ask questions about the premises in order to determine whether they are supported by evidence or if they lack evidence altogether.
3) does the argument contain fallacies
fallacies are flaws in reasoning and when arguments are built upon fallacious thinking, they collapse.
Fallacies
after you identify the conclusion and premises of an argument, and you have checked to see whether the premises have ample evidence to support them, the next thing you ought to do is look for fallacies. The reason why it is important to be able to recognize fallacies is because when you identify fallacies in another person’s argument, you gain the upper hand.
Ad Hominem - this fallacy involves attacking the person rather than the argument he or she is presenting
Appeal to tradition - this fallacy occurs when one assumes that something is true because it has always been done in a particular way.
Appeal to force - when one commits this fallacy, he or she appeal to violence in order to sound convincing
Appeal to ignorance - this fallacy involved arguing that a claim is true just because it has not shown to be false.
Appeal to pity - this fallacy occurs when one appeals to pity as an argument for special treatment.
More Fallacies
Appeal to the Popular - this fallacy involves appealing to the emotions of a crowd, or striving to convince someone to go along with the crowd
Circular reasoning - this fallacy occurs when one uses his or her comclusion as a premise
False Dilemma - when one commits this fallacy, he or she reduces the options considered to just two where there are additional options available
Non Sequitur - this fallacy involves drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow the premises
Overgeneralizing - this fallacy occurs when one generalizes from too few examples
Cause and Effect - when one commits this fallacy, he or she assumes that the effect is realted to the cause because the event occur together.
fallacy of division - this fallacy involved assuming that what is true of the part is true of the whole
fallacy of equivocation - this fallacy occurs when one uses the same term in an argument in different places, although the word has different meanings.
Red herring - When one commits this fallacy, he or she introduces an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverts attention from the main subject
straw man - this fallacy involves making a very weak argument so that no one will agree with its conclusion
genetic fallacy - this fallacy occurs when one attempts to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
Guilt by association - when one commits this fallacy he or she rejects an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another
poisoning the well - this fallacy involved presenting negative information about a person before he or she speaks so as to discredit the person’s argument
special pleading - this fallacy occurs when one applies a standard to another that id different from the standard applied to oneself
slippery slope - when one commits this fallacy, he or she argues that a small first step leads to a string of related events that ultimately culminate in a major event.
Authorities
Authorities in Arguments
everyone appeals to some sort of authority to “settle it”
What authority is being appealed to?
Is the authority credible?
Is the authority informed?
Is the authority unbiased?
Do all equal authorities agree?
What authority is being appealed to?
Common authorities that are appealed to in arguments include, but are not limited to”
God
Science
Informed professionals
Media
Personal Experience
Research studies
Books
Is the authority credible?
Credentials - ask 1) what is the authority’s current position? 2) what is the authority’s educational background? 3) in what field is the authority an expert, if any? 4) is the authority respected by others in their field?
consistency - ask 1) is the authority consistent or are contradictions present? 2) is the authority trustworthy?
Is the authority informed?
ask 1) has the authority published any related books or articles? 2) has the authority conducted any related research studies? 3) does the authority seem to be up-to-date with current trends and studies?
is the authority unbiased?
Do all equal authorities agree?
Cause and Effect Arguments for God’s Existence
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
the universe began to exist
therefore the universe has a cause
Five key points of importance when attempting to back up premise 2.
second law of thermodynamics
expanding universe
radiation echo (afterglow)
galaxy seeds
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity
Five proofs the universe is not eternal
the universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy.
The universe is expanding. this was confirmed through the hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back to a single point.
The raidation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. The radiation echo is thought to be the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows that the universe had a spectacularly dymanic beginning, easily associated with gods creative act.
Galaxy seeds. scientists believe that , if the big bang is true, the temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. to discover whether these ripples exist, the comsmic background explorer, COBE, was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. what COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that enable galaxies to form.
Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believes. his theiry proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect. einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a fudge factor into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. but there was one problem. his fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations.
Design Argument
Premise 1: every design has a designer
Premise 2: The universe is designed
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a Designer
A skeptic will likely agree with Premise 1 and attack Premise 2 of this argument. Even if this is the case, it is still important to back up each premise using logic and evidence.
William Paley
Well-known for popularizing the design argument for God’s existence by using the following analogy:
Suppose you are walking in a park in your neighborhood when you find a watch lying on the ground. What would you initially think to yourself? That through a series of random processes, a watch was formed, and then that watch fell out of the sky to where you found it in the park? Would you assume that the watch’s springs, cogs, gears, and other parts were randomly assembled and arranged into an instrument that measures time? Of course not! First, you would assume that someone dropped the watch in the park. Second, you would assume someone designed the watch because watches require watchmakers. Likewise, a universe that bears the marks of design requires an Intelligent Designer.
William Paley (1743-1805) was an English clergyman, Christian apologist, and philosopher who is well-known for using the watchmaker analogy to argue from the design of the universe to God’s existence.
Designs Imply Designers
Design in the Universe
If designs imply designers, then the question that we must answer regarding the universe is “Is the universe designed?”
On Earth, oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere. If it were at 25%, fires would continually erupt. If it were 15%, humans would suffocate.
If the gravitational interaction between Earth and the moon were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be much too severe to support human life. If it were less, the orbital changes would cause the climate to be unstable.
If the carbon dioxide level were higher than it currently is, Earth would be like a greenhouse. If the carbon dioxide were less, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
If the gravitational force upon Earth were altered by even 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 %, the Earth's orbit around the Sun would be changed, impacting life on Earth.
If the Earth’s crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make human life impossible
If the 23-degree axial tilt of the Earth were altered to the slightest degree, surface temperatures would be too extreme to support life
If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the Earth would be bombarded by asteroids and comets. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum, drawing space material that would otherwise hit Earth.
If the rate of lightning strikes of Earth was greater, there would be significant destruction by fire. If it were less, there would be too little nitrogen filling in the soil.
Moral Argument
Premise 1: Objective moral laws imply a moral lawgiver
Premise 2: There is an objective moral law
Conclusion: There is a Moral Lawgiver
The word “objective” is an important word when considering the moral argument. This word means that something is true independent of people’s opinions.
Premise 1 states, “Objective moral laws imply a moral lawgiver”. Laws within a particular society come from a moral lawgiver. It certainly seems that when considering the higher moral law, which holds true for all people and societies, much come from some sort of lawgiver as well. Such a higher moral law as this requires a moral lawgiver that transcends humanity; this lawgiver must also be personal. Why is this the case? Because if humans were the source of this moral law, then right and wrong would differ for nearly everyone, and no consensus on morality would exist. However, this is not what we observe, as there are things that nearly all humans worldwide would agree are always right or always wrong. Additionally, the source of the moral law must be personal for a number of reasons, including the fact that there is a standard of behavior reveals that the source cares about how humans live; the fact that humans know about the moral law indicates that the source has communicated it to them; when humans feel as if they must obey this moral law, it is assumed that the source is personal; without a personal source, there would be no moral values.
God exists (consider the three arguments for his existence).
God is necessary (his existence is necessary for all other things to exist).
God is powerful (if he is the creator of the universe, then he must be powerful).
God is transcendent (if he is the creator of the universe and the source of the moral law, he must be above all things).
God is non-contingent (he is not dependent on anything else that exists).
God is intelligent (he must be intelligent considering how complex the universe is).
God is personal (he has instilled a sense of morality in humans; he cares about how people live).
God is moral (if he is the source of the moral law, then he must be moral himself).
God is engaged (he cares about how humans live their lives; miracles are possible if God is the creator of the universe).
God is unique (there is nothing else like him; nothing is greater than him).