Chris's Bible Newsletter

The Mind-Body Problem: Why Consciousness Proves Matter Isn't All There Is

Sun, 11 Oct 2026 14:30:23 GMT

Right now, as you read this passage, something remarkable is happening. Not only are you processing the visual information, and sending signals to motor neurons to move your eyes, but you also are experiencing that thought process and physical sensation. In fact, your awareness of this reading and the thoughts and feelings that it invokes are the only things in the entire universe that you know for sure exist – and this happens to be the thing that makes the most mystery of any modern scientist.

Explore the Learning Library

The Physicalist Paradigm

For hundreds of years, the physicalist paradigm has been the dominant viewpoint in the Western world. The laws of physics and chemistry are seen as the building blocks of the universe – the ultimate reality. Everything else, from planets to people, is just matter in different forms.

Consciousness and the Hard Problem

In order to understand why qualia present such a conundrum to modern physicists, it is important to separate “easy” problems of consciousness from the “hard” one.

An “easy” problem would be explaining the ways the brain influences, controls, and interprets physical sensations and thought. Although scientists have not yet discovered the processes behind higher-level reasoning, they have, through simple experimentation, been able to associate certain physical sensations with memories and triggers.

A “hard” problem, however, is explaining where these sensations, memories, and triggers originate. Why and how does a physical reaction have any qualitative aspect to it at all?

Take color, for example. Physicists may describe its wavelength, the way it interacts with the different parts of the eye, the way it is processed and recognized by the human brain – but they cannot describe what exactly red looks like, or why blue sounds like the color turquoise. An objective analysis of color would miss the very quality of being a color at all

Matter Cannot Explain Consciousness

Physical properties of matter have been known and measured long before consciousness was even considered as its own field of study. Length, width, mass, electrical charge, momentum – these are all qualities that have been defined by humans on a very objective basis.

Qualia, on the other hand, are incredibly subjective. You can describe the feeling of happiness in words, in triggers, in chemical reactions in the brain – but you can never describe its mass. Even in an experiment, observing a person’s thought patterns, you would notice a change in the brain, but not the thought itself. There is a huge disconnect between physical matter and human consciousness.

If physical properties were the ultimate reality, there would not be a need for a separate term, “physical.” Qualia have to be described in a different set of terms because they do not fit the same system of measurement as everything else in the universe.

The Hard Problem and the Structure of Our Universe

This disconnect between matter and consciousness is what ultimately breaks the whole physicalist paradigm. The fact that scientists cannot, even in theory, describe consciousness in terms of matter means that matter is, in fact, not the dominate force in the universe. It shifts the paradigm of physics to a completely different field – perhaps philosophy. The structure of our universe, according to physicists, would no longer be bricks and mortar, but instead consciousness and thought processes.

There are many ways to interpret this information – some say that matter is simply an extension of consciousness, while others argue that there is a “ghost” in the machine that no one has been able to describe. Either way, the fact that matter falls under a set of rules separate from qualia means that they cannot both be completely formed from the same substance.

My Statements

I believe that qualia are an undeniable part of the universe, one that should be regarded in the same regard as materialistic objects. The fact that they cannot be predicted from sheer observation of matter proves that matter itself is not the ultimate substance.

Although mental qualities can arise from physical ones, they have to be described in a different set of terms than mass or length. The way the brain works physically can be analyzed, but the sensations it creates have a very different quality to them – one that cannot be measured or predicted scientifically. I think that a physicist who chooses to ignore the fundamental nature of qualia in favor of upholding the physicalist paradigm is making a huge mistake. After all, qualia are the reason we can observe anything at all – including our own physical sensations and thoughts.

Is this Enough Evidence of Ancient Civilizations for Proving the Bibe?

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 16:38:17 GMT

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST🎙️

The truth is the answer highlights why so many of our earthly discoveries are buried deep inside the Earth’s crust with the exception of a select few.

What You Will Learn

What is the survival rate of physical artifacts or chemical signatures of civilization after a billion years of erosion and plate tectonics?
What kind of evidence will survive a billion years of erosion or plate tectonics?
Why would any isotope ratios or synthetic material in the crust be a sign of civilization?
How would we distinguish artificially created elements from naturally created ones?
What does this say about our search for evidence of aliens?

The Problem: All Things Get Destroyed

Begin by acknowledging a hard truth, the Earth is actively hostile toward evidence. Plate tectonics shuffles the continent around while erosion wears things down. With time, the effects of burial pressure and heat transforms rock deep underground. After a billion years, the evidence of most discoveries will have been worn away or turned to stone deep underground.

Take an example of a city. After some time, cracks will begin to appear in the concrete, the metal will rust, the plastics will degrade, and after just a few hundred years in this hypothetical scenario, the whole city will have turned to rubble. Now extrapolulate this idea to millions or billions and you begin to appreciate the fragility of the physical structures.

The Good News: But, There Are Exceptions.

Geologists have discovered chemical features that have lasted up to 3-4 billion years. These chemical signatures and the mineral structures they form are strong enough to survive billions of years of erosion. What this means is a civilization would leave behind similar chemical signatures, synthetic polymers (plastics) which are unique to their creation process, or unique isotope ratios which if unearthed, are fairly easy to identify as man-made.

However, the issue is not so much with the discovery of evidence, but being able to discern the difference between naturally occurring phenomena and artificially created materials

How We Distinguish the Two

Most geologists are already well-versed with distinguishing naturally occurring elements from artificial ones. The tell-tale signs for the presence of artificial isotope ratios are patterns that do not appear to come from anywhere. When they do, they will investigate it. In fact, the exact same principles apply in discerning evidence of a billion-year-old civilization. The evidence, if found, will stand out. Either as a peculiar isotope ratio found in a strange deposit or as a unique mineral structure. It will be impossible to mistake an isotope ratio for something it is not if it does not follow the laws of chemistry. Likewise, it will be fairly easy to discern evidence of industrial activity from natural formations. The evidence of this activity taking place would most likely appear as some sort of sediment deposit.

What This Tells Us About Time

What this teaches us about deep-time, is that a billion years is a very long period of time and although civilization has the capacity to endure, it does not have the capacity to resist destruction, especially on a planetary level. Every hundred million years or so, the planet changes and the old structures are swept away, buried underneath sediment, or transformed into deeper underground rock. Yet, the signatures of chemistry can be read by people who know what to look for. That is why the Biblical message of creation is so important, because it grounds humanity in a God who created not only the universe but the laws of science which govern it all. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The natural world functions the way that it does because it was created to function that way.

What You Learned

Most surface structures would have been worn down after a billion years, but chemical or isotope signatures could be found in the Earth’s crust
Evidence of synthetic polymers and abnormal isotope ratios would be found in sediment deposits.
Distinguishing artificial evidence from natural evidence would not be difficult since the former would not follow expected patterns
Geologists already have ways of distinguishing naturally occurring evidence from artificial ones.
Deep time shows us how long the planet has existed and how much change it has undergone

My Thoughts

Do The Universe Numbers Actually Point to a Designer? I was Surprised...

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 14:31:19 GMT

The constants that underlie physics are absurdly precise. Gravity is strong enough to keep us grounded, but not so strong that we can’t escape. Electrons have a certain mass, the cosmological constant has a certain value. Change any of them by a percent or so, and atoms can’t form. This is not some abstract philosophical issue. It’s measurable physics, and it asks an important question that neither science nor atheism can satisfactorily answer.

What You Will Learn

The constants of physics are extremely fine-tuned to allow life to exist
Changing specific values by as little as 1% or 2% would make chemistry, stars, and virtually everything else impossible
Scientists have proposed various solutions to this issue, such as the multiverse or anthropic principles
The Bible reveals long before these issues were discovered a designed origin to the universe
This touches on the issues of purpose, and of the very existence of God

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s take the strong nuclear force, for example. This is the force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. Now, if the strong nuclear force was 2% stronger, protons would bind immediately upon contact. This would mean that there could be no hydrogen, because hydrogen is a proton with nothing else attached to it. If there are no stars, there is no water, and therefore no life as we know it. However, if the strong nuclear force was 2% weaker, the binding energy would be too low to make deuterium, a isotope of hydrogen important in the fusion process. Either way, changing the strong nuclear force prevents life as we know it.

The cosmological constant determines how fast the universe is expanding. The value of the cosmological constant is one part in 10^120, give or take. To put that in perspective, imagine throwing a dart at a dartboard the size of the entire observable universe. The chances of hitting a target the size of an atom are similar to the chances of the cosmological constant being the value that it is. This number, however, is completely fine-tuned to allow for life to exist in the universe, and the process by which it was achieved is completely random.

How Scientists Explain It Away

The multiverse theory is a possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. Essentially, there are infinite universes in which the constants have randomly-assigned values. Some of these values are conducive to life, and therefore, we are living in one of these universes.

However, this explanation is merely an excuse to avoid a theistic conclusion, because we have no possible way of testing these universes. There could be other universes with all sorts of constants, but we have no evidence for it and cannot possibly test it. The multiverse is completely outside the realm of human experience, and therefore is not science.

Anthropic reasoning is similar to the multiverse theory in that it ignores the problem of the fine-tuning of the universe. Essentially, it says that the universe must be conducive to life, because we are here to observe it. This is circular reasoning. It does not actually prove anything about the origin of the universe or about its fine-tuning. The only reason we can observe the universe is because it is conducive to life. This reasoning completely ignores the fact that the universe needed to be fine-tuned to allow for life in the first place

What the Bible Said First

The Bible doesn’t say much about quantum mechanics, but it does say quite a lot about a designed origin to the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God, indeed. Job 9:4 says, “Your hand shall find your enemy, and you shall strike all who oppose you.” Colossians 1:16-17 reads, “By him all things were created... things in heaven and on earth... visible and invisible... all things were created by him, and for him.” Genesis 1:1 reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” These verses were written thousands of years before scientists even dreamed of fine-tuning being an issue, and yet, they say something quite similar.

In the beginning, there was God. He created the universe, and that is why it is ordered the way that it is. We can see it being ordered, and we can examine that ordering, but it had to come from somewhere to begin with. That is why the argument for design is so compelling.

The Bible also has a lot to say about the glory of God being seen in the created world. Romans 1:20 reads, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” This verse, more than any other, supports the idea that the universe’s fine-tuning is from a divine source.

What You Learned

The constants of physics are incredibly fine-tuned for life

Changing specific values by as little as 1% or 2% would make chemistry, stars, and virtually everything else impossible

Scientists have proposed various solutions to this issue, such as the multiverse or anthropic principles

The Bible reveals long before these issues were discovered a designed origin to the universe

Free Learning Library Resources

What Physics and Biology Actually Reveal About a Creator

Tue, 29 Sep 2026 14:31:34 GMT

Help This Ministry Grow...

Why Materialism Cannot Explain How You Think Right Now

Sun, 27 Sep 2026 14:03:01 GMT

Materialism makes the dubious claim that consciousness is simply another function of the brain. But neuroscience has yet to explain how a brain can be conscious. The explanatory gap between physical processes and consciousness is such that some philosophers now believe materialism to be unable to explain it.

LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE↗

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

The hard problem of consciousness and the reason why physics may not explain it
Why consciousness cannot be a computation and is not a material process
Why the explanatory gap has rendered materialism incomplete
What the Bible teaches about the soul and consciousness
Why panpsychism or emergence does not solve the problem

1. The Hard Problem Materialism Cannot Solve

Philosopher David Chalmers has distinguished between the easy and the hard problems of consciousness. The former refers to what neuroscience can tell us about consciousness - how the brain processes sensory information, what part of the brain perceives color and so on. The hard problem is simply why consciousness occurs at all. Why does any perceptual experience have meaning? Why do colors appear the way they do? Why is a particular experience pleasant or unpleasant? We may know what happens in the brain when a person sees the color red, but this information will say nothing about why it happens. It is an entirely different type of problem.

Materialism has no answer to the hard problem. It can tell us what occurs in the brain while a person is perceiving the color red, but not why the experience takes place. David Chalmers even says that God could have created a purely material world where the same physical processes took place without there being any consciousness, with no sense of feeling or awareness. The hard problem is an issue for all materialisms

2. Why Consciousness Cannot Be Computed

Consciousness is supposedly a purely material process, but computers are also material devices. If consciousness is a process like other physical processes, it should therefore be able to be computed. According to some researchers like Subhash Kak from Ohio State University, you can determine whether a program will halt simply by knowing how it will behave, but humans can do what computers cannot. Kak therefore claims that while humans are able to stop thinking about one thing and move on to another, computers cannot guarantee they will ever be able to do so. If consciousness can be computed, as materialists believe, this should not be a problem, but it apparently is.

Furthermore, researchers believe that human consciousness consists of distributed processes in the brain that can occur simultaneously in different parts of the brain, which actually prevents consciousness from being a material process.

3. The Explanatory Gap Is Growing

Materialism promised that as our knowledge of the brain and its workings improved, consciousness and its mysteries would become apparent. Instead, the more neuroscience uncovered the structure of the brain, the more inaccessible consciousness became. We can know what parts of the brain are responsible for a particular experience, but these insights will not tell us anything about what that perceptual experience is like. The explanatory gap is not only real, it seems to be widening.

Materialists claim that consciousness emerges when matter reaches a certain level of complexity, but this does little to explain what is going on. Panpsychism, a theory that states that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter in the same way that mass or charge is, only raises more questions. If consciousness is not inexplicably tied to matter, there is no need to claim it is a fundamental property of it. If it does emerge, materialism has failed.

4. What the Bible Says About Consciousness

Genesis 2:7 tells us that God created Adam, an embryo of flesh, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul. The Hebrew word used here for soul is nephesh and it refers to the physical body as well as the conscious being that occupies it. Paul speaks about the whole spirit, soul and body being kept pure in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. He sees them as three separate aspects of man. The Bible does not give us some exotic esoteric teaching about consciousness being something beyond matter. It sees our conscious soul as something intrinsic to our material bodies and that it is a fundamental aspect of who we are as humans. It is an observable fact, not some abstract unknown entity.

WHAT YOU LEARNED

The Hard Problem: Knowing what goes on physically in the brain does not explain why we experience consciousness.
Non-Computational Nature: Consciousness does not occur in computations, but is the underlying reason behind why we perceive.
Widening Gap: The growing explanatory gap demonstrates that materialism does not fully understand how material brains can be conscious.
Panpsychism’s Failure: Panpsychism simply renames the problem as a characteristic of matter rather than solving how consciousness occurs.
Biblical Soul: The Bible teaches that consciousness is fundamental to man, separating us from the rest of the physical creation.

Free Resources from this Article...

Help This Ministry Grow...

Why Does God Allow Suffering If He Is All Powerful?

Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:22:31 GMT

Why a Good God Allows Meaningful and Meaningless Suffering

It’s the question that turns people away from faith more than any other, and it’s a question that deserves a direct answer.

The argument from suffering is a simple one—if God is a good God, then he would stop meaningless suffering. An omnipotent God could stop it, but it isn’t stopped, so God can’t be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. This argument is simple, but it has weight, and should be met directly.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

The logical structure of the argument from suffering and why it has such power
What the Bible actually says about these issues through the story of Job
How the philosophy of skeptical theism tackles this issue
What purposes suffering can have
How faith can be reasonable despite these issues

1. The Logical Structure of the Suffering Argument and Why It Has Such Power

This argument is often called the problem of evil, and there are many variations, but most boil down to the same logical structure. An omnipotent God could prevent all suffering. An omnibenevolent God would want to prevent all suffering. An omniscient God would know how to prevent all suffering. If all these combinations are true, then why doesn’t God stop suffering?

What makes this such a powerful argument is that it seems almost intuitive and unquestionable. It taps into our natural sense of morality, and the sense that God’s actions should align with ours. This, however, assumes that God’s reasons for allowing or preventing suffering are the same as ours, which isn’t necessarily the case.

2. What the Bible Actually Says About Suffering Through Job’s Story

When Job’s children are killed and his servants are injured in one day, Job is grief-stricken, but he doesn’t believe this suffering is a result of his sins. Job’s friends, however, assume it is, but God rebukes them at the end, saying they have not spoken according to God’s wisdom, as Job has:

“My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.” Job 42:7

Note that He never tells them why Job suffered, but rather talks of His own glory and power, showing that Job’s suffering wasn’t a direct result of his sins, but was rather an event that tested his faith. Job himself begins to accept this:

“I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.” Job 42:2

He has gone from seeking a reason to why he suffered to accepting God’s power and wisdom over his own.

3. How Skeptical Theism Tackles This Issue

Skeptical theism suggests there is a way out of this dilemma by adding another part to this argument. We have good reason to think God exists, and that reason may well be that our moral intuitions are actually the voice of God within us. We have reasons to think that God exists and is benevolent, but we can’t necessarily understand why He permits suffering, because we are limited in our moral perception, but God is not. This doesn’t make us blind to the moral order of the world; it lets us see it, and trust in it. We have reason to think that God is good, and if we do, then it’s reasonable to trust His judgment is also good, even if we aren’t sure why He lets these things happen, because we can take comfort in the fact that He wanted to stop it as much as we did.

The weakness here is that many people base their reason for believing in God solely on these moral intuitions. If that were the reason you believed in God, then this view would actually hurt your arguments for Him, because you can’t trust those intuitions to be wholly from God if you base your belief on the idea that they’re moral and not divine. It works well with other evidences, however, and can provide a good basis to trust in God.

4. Why Some Suffering Might Have Purposes

Some suffering does have obvious purposes; the pain in your hand when you touch a hot stove warns you to not do it again. The grief you feel when a loved one dies can teach you that they were important to you. Even joy and pain can build our character, if we let them. Not all suffering is meaningless, then; some of it has clearly defined purposes. Where the argument fails is with the random suffering, such as when seemingly healthy children get cancer. It’s easy to say that God could stop it, but why should He? What purpose could be served by destroying something as horrible as childhood cancer? God’s reasons for doing anything might be beyond our understanding simply because He is so much more than us, but it’s hard to imagine a reason He could not prevent something that has already happened.

5. How Faith Can Be Reasonable Despite These Issues

Faith can be a reasonable thing, because while you can reason to the existence of God, you cannot reason to the idea that God’s reasons for doing what He does are always known to us, but it’s reasonable to place faith in someone whose wisdom we know to be good. That’s how Job placed faith in God, and how we can place faith in Him as well. It isn’t unreasonable to ask why God permits us to suffer when we don’t understand it, but when He does not give us an answer, we have to place our faith in the evidence we do have.

WHAT YOU LEARNED

Assumption of Intent: The argument from suffering assumes that God’s reasons for doing anything are the same as ours, which may not be the case.
Job’s Example: Job teaches that God may not have reasons to permit suffering that we can understand, but we can have faith in His goodness.
Skeptical Theism: Skeptical theism gives a good reason why we can believe in God while seeing suffering, as we have reasons to believe in God that aren’t related to why God permits suffering.
Purpose of Pain: Some suffering obviously has a purpose, but some suffering appears random and inexplicable.
Reasonable Faith: Faith can be a reasonable thing when it is based on solid evidence for God’s existence and His goodness.

MY THOUGHTS

I think the argument from suffering is a powerful issue, as it’s intuitively simple and reasonable to assume that suffering would stop if God wanted it to, but the answer is also simple—it’s reasonable to have faith in God’s goodness even when we don’t understand God’s choices. It’s easy to simply deny the argument exists, but I think the better answer is to challenge these assumptions, not ignore the argument entirely.

What I think is most impressive about Job’s story is that he learns to have faith in something greater than himself, even if he might never totally understand it. I don’t think any of us would be able to understand the reasons for our suffering if it came suddenly and without warning, but we can take comfort in the fact that God cares for us all the same, and has our best interests at heart.

COMMON QUESTIONS

Q: Doesn’t skeptical theism let God off the hook too easily?

Not really, if it is combined with reasons to believe in God’s existence in the first place. Skeptical theism can be a good tool to answer the question of why God permits suffering, because we have reasons to believe in His existence and goodness that aren’t related to why He permits suffering. If you have reasons to believe in God, then it’s reasonable to have faith in His goodness, even if you don’t have reasons to believe God permits suffering for good reasons.

Q: Why didn’t God just create a world without suffering?

We don’t know if that’s possible, as a world where people aren’t capable of suffering may also make it impossible for them to make real choices rooted in virtue. God could have created a world of robots who never experience pain or joy, but who also cannot grow in virtue or love. It may well be that this wasn’t an option to God, but only He knows.

Q: How do I trust God when I’m suffering right now?

You may not be able to trust God to stop your suffering, but you can ask yourself if you have reasons to believe God is good, and trust in that. You can ask yourself if God has shown you that He cares for you, and you can trust Him. Jesus cared for us so much that He was willing to suffer and die for us:

“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15

Q: Is Job’s story meant to be the final answer on suffering?

No, because while Job is a good example of a man who learns to find faith in God, Scripture contains many other examples of how people have expressed their relationships with God in suffering. Job’s story is one of trusting in God’s goodness, but Paul writes:

“And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope.” Romans 5:3-4

Jesus has also promised that His disciples will follow Him into suffering, but He has also overcome the world (John 16:33).

Free Resources from this Article...

Why Your Logic Borrowed from a World You Reject?

Sun, 20 Sep 2026 14:03:42 GMT

What You Will Learn

How presuppositions shape every argument you make
How circular reasoning may not be a problem after all
The difference between presuppositional and evidential apologetics
How worldview provides the foundation for logic itself
Why evaluating another worldview requires examining your own
Why borrowing tools from an opposing system is problematic

How Presuppositions Shape Every Argument You Make

A presupposition is an assumption one makes prior to reasoning. What this means is that you don’t prove something to be true first, but rather you assume something to be true in order to reason something else to be true. Another way to think about it is foundation. You don’t put your foundation on top of a house, rather you put it on the ground, and build up from there.

Each worldview comes with its own set of presuppositions, which are the things you assume to be true, or take for granted. Atheism presupposes that matter is the essence of reality, Christianity presupposes that God is the creator of all things, and Science presupposes that there are laws which govern the physical universe. It is important to understand that none of these have been proven, and so cannot serve as the foundation for proof.

The thing to understand is that you can’t reason about something if you don’t presuppose it. That is to say, it’s not a matter of if you have presuppositions, it’s a matter of knowing what they are.

Why Circular Reasoning Isn’t Always A Weakness

One criticism of presuppositional apologetics is that it uses circular reasoning to justify itself, for example by appealing to scripture to prove the bible is true. While this is a fair criticism of other forms of argumentation, it’s a bit of a straw man when applied to presuppositional apologetics. This is because circular reasoning occurs at the foundational level of reasoning itself.

If you presuppose that logic works, then you’re going to use logic to prove that logic works. If you presuppose that perception provides true information about reality, you’re going to use perception to prove that perception provides true information about reality. The thing with circular reasoning is that you’re doing it anyway, and at some point down the line, you’ve got to provide a justification for your foundation.

The thing about Christianity is that we have a foundation that supports the type of reasoning that supports Christianity. We know that God exists in part because of scripture, but we also know that scripture is true because God exists. We know God exists because of the universe, and we know the universe is the way it is because God made it that way. There’s a certain level of circular reasoning here, but it’s also completely coherent, and it’s the type of foundation that makes reasoning about anything possible

The Difference Between Presuppositional And Evidential Apologetics

Evidence based apologetics are all about evidence. The idea is that there’s objective evidence that you can look at, and objectively analyze to reach an objective conclusion. The thing is, that type of reasoning always has a presupposition, and that is that there is an objective standard by which you can judge evidence.

Presuppositional apologists would respond by pointing out that there’s no objective standard by which to even judge the objectivity of evidence in the first place. To the extent that there is objective evidence for things like the beginning of the universe or the existence of consciousness, that evidence is interpreted through the lens of someone’s presuppositions. A materialist looks at the universe and sees matter, while a Christian looks at the universe and sees the handiwork of God.

The way that we know which one is right is by examining the coherence of each worldview as a whole. The problem is that most people aren’t really aware of what they presuppose in the first place, and so aren’t really aware of what it is they believe in the first place.

How Worldviews Provide The Foundation For Logic Itself

Another thing to consider is that logic, maths, and reason require a foundation. Why does maths work? Why is it that things can’t be both true and not true? Why should we trust our reasoning ability? Materialism has a really hard time answering these questions, because if it’s just matter, then you can’t really trust your mind to be reasoning correctly, because it’s just matter.

It’s Christianity’s claim to fame in a way, that we are made in the image of God, and therefore have reason because God has reason.

The Problem Of Borrowing Logical Tools From A System You Reject

The problem with being an atheist is that you can’t really use the tools of thought that Christianity has provided for you. The fact is that we live in a world where Christianity has created systems of thought that make reasoning about things much easier, and if there’s an argument to be made that’s more cogent, it’s by default a better argument to use.

Why Evaluating Another Worldview Requires Examining Your Own First

Before you can go and tear something down, you need a good grasp on why it was built in the first place. If you want to understand Christianity well enough to refute it, you need to know what it is that Christianity presupposes, and what it is that you presuppose.

What You Learned

Presuppositions are the foundation of everything we know
Circular reasoning is inherent to reasoning at a foundational level
Presuppositional apologetics examines the role worldviews play in reasoning
Worldviews must account for logic and reason in order to be coherent
It’s not possible to evaluate one worldview by another without first understanding the presuppositions of each

My Thoughts + Q&A

Does a Billion Years Give Evolution Enough Time to Actually Work?

Wed, 16 Sep 2026 11:17:32 GMT

Deep Study Free Resources

When Evolution Runs Out of Time

The Sun will boil away Earth’s oceans in approximately a billion years. Evolutionists require that same kind of deep time to explain how fish became humans. But what if deep time runs out? Here is the dilemma evolutionists face.

What You Will Learn

Why evolutionists rely on deep time as their primary explanation for complexity
How much time the earth actually has to run out of gas (death)
What the fossil record actually shows in terms of gradual change
How one billion years in not as much time as it seems on a molecular scale
How Christians should think about time, chance, and design

Deep Time Is Evolution’s Essential Requirement

Evolution requires time in order to work. In fact, evolution requires billions of years. Without deep time, it’s impossible for random mutations and natural selection to explain the complexity we see in biology. Richard Dawkins refers to deep time as evolution’s “magic wand“. One look at the math, and it becomes clear why the proponents of evolution need deep time. Given enough time, anything is possible. If you flip a coin a million times, you’re bound to get a thousand heads in a row eventually.

But here’s what evolutionists don’t tell you: they believe that deep time is the mechanism by which evolutionary change occurs. They believe that deep time replaces design. If you remove deep time from the argument, evolution is nothing but a statistical impossibility.

The Earth Has Less Time Than Evolutionists Need

The sun is getting hotter every day. In about one billion years, the increased temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, completely vaporizing Earth’s oceans. This makes Earth uninhabitable. That’s not up for debate, that’s physics. Now, don’t get me wrong; life on Earth has been around for a good chunk of that 3.8 billion years. That seems like plenty of time for evolution to occur.

But have you stopped to think about what evolution actually entails? Have you considered that this process which went from single-celled organisms to complex fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans is not a straight line, but a very convoluted series of events? Evolutionists can’t even explain the Cambrian Explosion, when all of the basic animal forms appeared in a very short time span. After that, it took another 6 million years for humans to evolve from apes.

Evolution has had approximately 3.8 billion years to make us all from single-celled organisms. That’s it

The Fossil Record Doesn’t Support Evolution

Darwin all but admitted that the fossil record did not support evolution. He expected that it would, eventually, uncover the transitional fossils he thought he saw in nature. But, when they weren’t found, Darwinism wasn’t adjusted to reflect reality. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge did extensive research into the fossil record, and so thoroughly did they document the phenomenon of stasis, that they actually coined the term “punctuated equilibrium“. They demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fossils found in sedimentary rock demonstrated a complete lack of transitional change from one species to the next.

Gould and Eldredge may have been evolutionists, but they were also honest men who actually did research before coming to their conclusions. They even went as far as to explicitly stating in their works that the fossil record did not support evolution. If there’s a billion years on Earth for evolution to occur, where is the gradual change recorded in the layers of sedimentary rock?

Even with a Billion Years, Evolution Can’t Happen

Here’s another thing people don’t realize: time does not solve evolution’s probability problems. It just makes them less apparent. If you multiply out a billion years in seconds, you get approximately 31 billion seconds. That’s not a lot of time when you consider all the possible mutations that need to happen to turn one species into another.

You see, when people talk about evolution in terms of mutations and DNA, they forget probability. They forgot the math. There’s no way, statistically, for evolution to occur. The number of possible mutations is astronomical compared to the number that actually need to happen. Even if you gave evolution all the time in the universe, it still wouldn’t be able to make the complexity we see.

What This Means for Christians

Christians do not have to argue against deep time, because it doesn’t exist in the Biblical sense. We should not deny the science of geology. The creation account in Genesis doesn’t talk about the age of the earth. But, we do realize that deep time does not solve evolution’s conundrum. In fact, it makes the problems evolution has with probability even greater.

God did not create the universe by throwing dice at random until something interesting came along. He is not an evolutionist, but a designer who created the universe with purpose and precision. Whether He used six days or six billion years is unimportant. The fact that He created it is what matters.

What You Learned

Evolution depends on deep time to explain complexity and diversity
The earth will die in about a billion years
The fossil record does not demonstrate evolution
Time does not solve the probability issues evolution has
Time is not a solution, unless design is

Does Truth Change Based on Who Believes It?

Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:03:21 GMT

Support

Most people act as though truth is invariable until it isn’t. We all agree that 2+2=4, but when asked whether biological sex is real or whether justice should be the same for everyone, suddenly people claim that truth is whatever you decide it to be.

What You Will Learn

Why objective truth exists independently of anyone’s beliefs
How relativism undermines itself
How objective facts differ from subjective preferences
Why abandoning objective truth damages society and discussion
What the Bible has to say about objective truth
How to spot when someone is using relativism as an argument

Objective Truth Exists Independent of Belief

Objective truth is what’s true regardless of whether anyone believes it. The earth orbited the sun long before we realized it. Gravity worked long before Newton described it. The math doesn’t change just because someone disagrees with it. 2+2=4 in every culture, in every era, in every circumstance. This is objective truth.

Biology works the same way. Male and female bodies have objective physical differences, such as muscle mass, bone density, and overall skeletal structure. These facts remain true regardless of anyone’s identity. When we disregard objective physical reality to accommodate other preferences, we are not being compassionate--we’re being objectively wrong.

Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life.” He didn’t say, “I am a truth and your truth.” He claimed to be the objective truth.

Relativism Contradicts Itself and Falls Apart

The problem with moral relativism is that the statement, “all truth is relative,” claims to be an objectively true statement. If it’s simply relatively true, then it can’t bind anyone, because it’s not objectively true. If it’s objectively true that all truth is relative, then the speaker is contradicting himself.

The same problem comes up when people claim that your truth and my truth are equally valid, even when they contradict each other. This position undermines any hope of discussion or debate, because if your truth and my truth are both binding, then we have nowhere to go. A judge could not deliver a sentence because your crime would be relative to your truth. A doctor could not declare a diagnosis because your illness would be relative to your truth. A parent could not discipline a child on the idea that right and wrong were relative to the child’s truth. Society cannot function without universally accepted objective moral standards, or else everyone is serving their own “truth” with no ability to appeal to anything bigger.

Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” This is only true if there are standards to measure against--what seems right versus what actually is right, subjective versus objective.

Subjective Preferences Are Real But Not Universal Truths

This is where people get confused. There’s nothing wrong with subjectively preferring coffee to tea. I do it all the time, and it’s no skin off my nose if you prefer tea to coffee. However, the fact that I prefer coffee to tea isn’t actually a universal truth.

Same goes with morality. When we say that slavery is wrong, we’re making a claim that not only is it undesirable, but that it objectively ought not to be, because it violates an objective moral standard that all people can recognize. If slavery was simply a matter of subjective preference, we couldn’t condemn it in other cultures or time periods, and most obviously in our own if it turns out to be desirable to us. But most people know intuitively that slavery is objectively wrong, not only for us, but for everyone.

The Bible actually grounds morality in the nature of God Himself, rather than in some cultural preference. God didn’t create morality and then decide what to do based on it--God’s nature itself is the standard by which we judge morality. Exodus 34:6 is God describing Himself as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness..

Why Abandoning Objective Truth Breaks Everything

When a society collectively abandons objective truth, you end up with a society that can no longer function. You can’t have bridges built on subjective engineering, or crime punished under subjective law, or medicine practiced under the auspices of disease being subjective.

Furthermore, relativism serves as a tool for the strong to dominate the weak. There’s no appeal to anything bigger than your particular tribe and its preferences. History is rife with examples of this type of tribal fighting, with no ability to appeal to any truth bigger than yourself--and in practice this always leads to domination by the more expansionistic tribes at the expense of the smaller, weaker ones.

What You Learned

Objective truth exists independent of belief, such as in math and physics
Relativism contradicts itself and makes discussion impossible
Subjective preferences are real but are not actually universal truths
A society that abandons objective standards for morality and reality can no longer function
The Bible grounds morality in the objective nature of God

My Thoughts

The push for relativism is really a desire for dominion. If truth is what you decide it to be, then you can decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t--which is why relativism is always advanced by those who seek to dominate others under the guise of tolerance.

The Christian view of truth being grounded in the objective nature of God is actually a freeing one, because it means that we don’t have to create morality and constantly defend it. We can appeal to an objective source for our morality, our rights, and our ability to discuss truth generally.

Common Questions

Q: Isn’t believing in objective truth being intolerant? No. You can believe that something is objectively true and still be tolerant of those who believe otherwise. In fact, you can’t have tolerance without objective truth, because tolerance only exists when you realize that something is wrong. If there’s no objective truth, everything is a matter of opinion and there are no grounds for discussion--except to appeal to someone having a “superior” opinion.

Q: Don’t scientists constantly change their minds? They may revise certain details, but they’re all converging on an objective view of the world. The reason scientists change certain beliefs is because they found out that a previously-held view was objectively wrong. This is how we know there’s an objective view of the world--because we can be wrong about it. Jesus said in John 8:32, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Q: How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the objectively correct one? I don’t think that anyone’s claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is objectively correct. What we do know is that the Bible itself contains objectively true statements. Either Jesus rose from the dead or He didn’t, and either God exists or He doesn’t. We can interpret those facts however we want, but they’re objectively true.

Q: Isn’t this denying people’s experiences? No. It recognizes that experience is subjective. You may feel that something subjective is true, but that doesn’t make it so. Objective truth actually helps protect subjective truth, by making sure that justice and rights are upheld no matter what your subjective experience is.

Resources

What if you are Wrong about Everything? Epistemology

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 14:03:19 GMT

Learning Library Resources

We all assume we’re right. That’s the quietest, most dangerous assumption we make. Every argument you’ve ever had, every decision you’ve ever made, every belief you hold — it all rests on the assumption that you know what you’re talking about. But here’s the question that unravels everything: how do you know? Not what do you know, but how do you know it? That’s the question of epistemology, and it’s not just for philosophers in ivory towers. It’s the most practical question you’ll ever face.

The Elephant in the Room

Here’s the thing about knowledge — we all think we have it, but most of us have never actually stopped to ask where it comes from. We’re like fish trying to describe water. We’re swimming in it, but we can’t see it.

Philosophers have wrestled with this for millennia. How do we know what we know? Is it through our senses? Our reason? Our intuition? The big names in philosophy — Descartes with his radical doubt, Kant with his categories, Hume with his skepticism — they all took a swing at it. And honestly? They came up with some clever theories. But they all hit the same wall.

Here’s the problem: if knowledge comes from the world around us, then knowledge is only as reliable as our ability to perceive it. And anyone who’s ever seen a magic trick knows our senses can be fooled. If knowledge comes from reason, then we need to justify reason using reason, which is like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. It’s circular. It’s a dead end.

The modern world has decided to just give up on certainty altogether. We live in a culture that says truth is relative, that your truth is true for you and my truth is true for me, that the only thing we can’t tolerate is someone claiming to have the truth. That’s the ultimate sin in our culture — claiming to know something for sure. We’ve built an entire society on the shifting sands of “I feel” and “I think” and “it’s true for me.”

But here’s the thing that keeps me up at night: if you can’t know anything for sure, then you can’t know that either. The person who says “there is no truth” is making a truth claim. The person who says “you can’t know anything” claims to know that. The entire worldview collapses under its own weight. It’s self-refuting, and yet we’ve built our entire culture on it.

The Foundation Beneath the Foundation

So what if we’re asking the wrong question? What if we’re so busy looking for the answer that we missed the fact that the answer was right there all along? What if certainty doesn’t come from finding solid ground, but from knowing the One who is the ground of all being?

The book of Proverbs says it this way: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Not a part of it, not a helpful starting point, the beginning. The word used there in Hebrew, reshit, means the first, the chief, the most important part. The foundation. You can’t have knowledge without it, is what he’s saying.

And that makes sense when you think about it. If there’s a God, and if He created everything, then everything finds its purpose and meaning in relation to Him. A fish doesn’t know it’s wet until it’s out of water. A human being doesn’t know what knowledge is until they stand before the source of all knowledge. The Bible says we were made in His image, which means we were made to know Him. And when we know Him, everything else clicks into place. When we don’t, everything falls apart

The God Who Reveals

Here’s where Christianity completely changes the game. Every other worldview has a system of knowing that depends on human effort. You have to be smart enough, or good enough, or enlightened enough to figure it out. You have to climb the mountain of knowledge yourself. But Christianity says something radical: God comes down to us.

We don’t have to reach up and find God through our own intellectual effort. He’s revealed Himself to us. The Psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). Paul tells us that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20).

God has revealed Himself in creation, in His Word, and ultimately in His Son. “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2). Christianity isn’t a system of knowledge we discover; it’s a relationship we receive.

The Apostle Paul called it a mystery that has been made known: “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). The Creator of the universe didn’t just give us a book and say, “Good luck with that.” He gave us His Son, and He gave us His Spirit, so that we could know Him. Not just know about Him, but know Him. Intimately. Personally. Truly.

How to Actually Know Stuff

So what does this mean for how we live our lives? It means we can have confidence. Not arrogance, but a deep, settled assurance that the God who made the universe is not playing hide-and-seek with us. He wants to be known.

First, we have to be willing to know. “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God” (John 7:17). There’s a moral component to knowledge. If our hearts are set on our own way, we won’t recognize the truth when we see it. But if we’re willing to obey, God will show us what’s true.

Second, we have to ask. “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you” (James 1:5). God is not threatened by our questions. He’s not scared of our doubts. He invites us to ask, to seek, to knock.

Third, we have to build our lives on the Rock. Jesus told a story about two builders — one who built on sand and one who built on rock. The one who built on the rock was the one who heard Jesus’s words and put them into practice (Matthew 7:24-27). Knowledge isn’t just about information; it’s about transformation. It’s about taking God at His Word and living like it’s true.

The Truth That Sets You Free

Here’s what I want you to take away from this: you were made for certainty. Not the fake, arrogant certainty of a know-it-all, but the deep, abiding confidence that comes from knowing the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The world will tell you that you can’t know for sure. They’ll call you closed-minded for claiming to have the truth. But the opposite of faith isn’t doubt — it’s certainty in the wrong thing. Faith is being “sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). It’s a confidence that isn’t based on our ability to figure everything out, but on God’s character and His faithfulness.

So stop trying to figure it all out on your own. Stop trying to build a foundation on the shifting sands of human opinion. Stop being blown around by every wind of teaching. Instead, build your life on the solid rock of Jesus Christ. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). And He is the only foundation on which true knowledge can stand.

Everything else is just sand.

5 Common Questions

Q: Is it arrogant to claim you have the truth?

No, not if that truth is grounded in humility. The Bible says Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). It’s not about being smart enough to figure it out; it’s about being humble enough to receive what God has revealed. The proud person says, “I have no need of God.” The humble person says, “God, show me your ways.”

Q: Can I really know God personally, or is that just religious talk?

I know it’s a cliché, but it’s true — knowledge isn’t just about facts, it’s about relationship. You can know about a person, but to know them means you have a relationship with them. The Bible says we can have that with God through Jesus. He’s not distant or aloof; He’s a Father who wants to know His children. That’s the whole point of the Gospel.

Q: What about all the smart people who don’t believe in God?

Paul addresses this directly in Romans 1. He says that God’s invisible qualities are “clearly seen” and that people are “without excuse.” The problem isn’t a lack of evidence; it’s a heart issue. The Bible says that “the fool says in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14:1). That sounds harsh, but it’s a description of the intellectual and moral rebellion of the human heart, not a commentary on someone’s IQ. We don’t need more information; we need more humility.

Q: What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

Knowledge is the accumulation of facts; wisdom is the right application of those facts. You can have a lot of knowledge and not an ounce of wisdom. But the book of Proverbs says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). It’s the starting point. When you have a right relationship with God, you have the foundation for true knowledge and the discernment to use it rightly.

Q: What if I have doubts?

Everyone has doubts. The question is what you do with them. Don’t let them drive you away from God; let them drive you toward Him. The father in Mark 9 cried out, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24). That’s a prayer God can answer. Bring your doubts to the cross, lay them at His feet, and ask Him to help you. He is faithful.

The New Atheism? Why there is no logical argument here.

Sun, 06 Sep 2026 12:04:11 GMT

In the early 2000s, several prominent atheists rose to prominence and dedicated themselves to the task of ridiculing and debunking God and his teachings. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, as the leaders of the so-called “New Atheism,” wrote articles and books, gave interviews and public speeches, and even engaged in open on-air debates with representatives of the Christian faith. An understanding of the views of these philosophers is crucial to combating them effectively.

What You Will Learn

The central figures of the New Atheism and the essence of their views;
The arguments these atheists use to oppose Christianity;
What distinguishes New Atheism from other atheistic movements;
Why Christians should care what these people say;
Rebuttals to the arguments presented by New Atheism leaders.

The Main Figures and Their Books

The English biologist Richard Dawkins was the first famous representative of the New Atheism. In 2006, he published the book The God Delusion , which made him a household name and one of the most prominent critics of religious faith. Dawkins’ book, as well as the works of his contemporaries, was intended to popularize atheism and undermine the foundations of religious faith.

Christopher Hitchens, a renowned journalist and essayist, published God Is Not Great in 2007. Compared to Dawkins, Hitchens was a more dynamic and aggressive opponent of religion. In his book, he argued that religion corrupted everything and made people unreasonable. Other critics of religious faith, namely Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, expressed similar views. However, Dawkins and Hitchens were the most prominent among the New Atheism leaders.

It is noteworthy that New Atheism does not differ significantly from previous atheistic movements. Over a century ago, atheists held meetings, wrote articles, and gave speeches on the supposed nonexistence of God. The difference between the New Atheism and its predecessors lies in the public and aggressive opposition of Christians, which New Atheists embodied through their works of popular science and criticism of Christian principles.

The Core Arguments

New Atheism leaders traditionally adhere to several arguments against the Christian religion. Firstly, Dawkins and his contemporaries argue that belief in God is unreasonable and unsupported by evidence. Dawkins writes that there is no more reason to believe in Zeus or any other pagan deity than in the Christian God. Secondly, New Atheism opponents of Christianity argue that religion brings only suffering and violence.

Hitchens, in particular, actively argues that religion corrupts and makes people savage. Thirdly, Dawkins and Hitchens write that the emergence of natural sciences such as biology and physics diminishes the need to believe in God. With the development of evolutionary biology and genetics, believers lose one of the main reasons for believing in God, namely the inexplicability of the origin of life. This argument is based on the so-called scientism, which is the position that only scientific knowledge can be considered true.

Moreover, Dawkins and Hitchens write that the existence of God is unreasonable from a logical point of view. The New Atheism opponents of Christianity argue that theologians cannot answer simple questions about God and that the Bible’s teaching contradicts common sense

Where the Logic Breaks Down

The main argument against the New Atheism lies in the very definition of this term. New Atheism is inherently opposed to Christian faith, but there is no doubt that this doctrine is built on controversial foundations. Many philosophers, both Christian and atheist, have criticized Dawkins for being too confident in his position when it comes to Christian theology. While Dawkins and Hitchens argue that religion corrupts and makes people unreasonable, many Christians would agree that it is, indeed, atheists who are unreasonable in their opposition to Christian principles.

The assumption of scientism as the basis for criticizing religious faith does not hold water either. Declaring physics and biology as the only truth will not make theology any less valuable. Science answers fundamental questions about the workings of the universe, but it cannot say whether human life has meaning and purpose. The Bible answers these questions, while Dawkins and Hitchens insist that such answers do not exist.

According to the Bible, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). New Atheism opponents of Christianity argue that belief in God is irrational. However, they ignore the fact that the unreasonableness of faith in God is precisely one of the reasons for the fall of humanity. From a Christian point of view, it is not atheists who are unreasonable, but those who blindly believe in the power of reason.

What You Learned

In the early 2000s, a new wave of critics of Christianity arose.
New Atheism leaders Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett opposed religious faith and sought to debunk Christianity.
The essence of their argument lies in the irrationality of belief in God and the harmfulness of religion in general.
New Atheism proponents argue that the emergence of natural sciences deprived humanity of the need to turn to God.
New Atheism rests on the position of scientism and several other controversial arguments.

My Thoughts

New Atheism drew attention to itself as a phenomenon that questioned the rationality of religious faith. However, it would be a mistake to perceive it as something more than an interesting atheist movement. New Atheism opponents of Christianity are unreasonable in their position, arguing that belief in God is irrational. Moreover, they are wrong to say that natural sciences provide answers that were previously given by religion. A more careful examination of their positions reveals several inconsistencies that undermine the foundations of New Atheism.

It is also worth mentioning that at the moment New Atheism is in decline. Although Dawkins and Hitchens were once popular public figures, they are now gradually forgotten. Young people increasingly prefer a more humane and tolerant Islam, and New Atheism, as a whole, is gradually dying out as well.

What Atheists Actually Believe Will Surprise You

Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:38:22 GMT

Learning Library Resources

Most Christians believe they understand what atheists believe. To them, it’s that atheists are angry towards God or that they are immoral, or that they need better evidence for God’s existence. However, when actually engaging with an atheist, one will quickly learn that atheism is not a monolithic ideology, but many differing worldviews and beliefs without a clear directive. In order to engage with atheists, one must have at least an elementary grasp of these varying beliefs.

What You Will Learn

The exact definition of atheism and why it is misunderstood

The difference between “weak” and “strong” atheism

What atheists actually say about the world, not just what they say against

The importance of science, reason, and evidence to atheistic thinking

How atheists view morality without God

Why this is important to your faith and witness

Defining Atheism: More than “No God”

The word atheism comes from the greek a(without) and theos(god). Atheism, in it’s most basic form, is the lack of belief in any deity. However, there are two main types of atheists. There are those that believe there is no god and those who simply don’t believe in a god because they don’t have enough justifying evidence. The former is “strong atheism” or “positive atheism”. The latter is “weak atheism” or “negative atheism”.

Strong atheists make the claim “there is no God” and believe they have enough evidence or reason to believe their assertion. Weak atheists make no such claim. They simply state that they do not believe in a god due to the lack of sufficient evidence. It is important to note the difference between weak and strong atheism as the former is much easier to refute. You want to engage a strong athiest as they generally can carry on a rational conversation without their emotions clouding judgement. A weak atheist is much like someone that hasn’t been convinced and that holds a very different type of conversation. Weak athiests will generally make 1 or 2 points then get some push back from you and shut down or start to argue without making further points. The important thing to understand is you do not have to continue into a debate if both sides are not giving some level of respect. When 1 party stops being respectful the other may do the same or shut down and this is the fastest way to get nowhere in a debate. Atheiests are looking for a resason to shut you down so don’t give the one.

The Spectrum of Atheism

As previously mentioned there are atheists that are former Christians, former Muslims, or those that were raised without any religion. There are atheists that are very philosophical and those that are very practical. There are atheists that are very hostile towards religion and those that are completely indifferent. You can see how this can be a very wide spectrum and you want to make sure you have a general idea on each of these positions.

There is a difference between explicit and implicit atheism. Explicit atheism is when an atheist has consciously rejected belief in a deity. Implicit atheism is when an atheist has never really considered the idea. You will find the highest number of implicit athiests generally in the secular realm. They don’t really think about it much but live and act as if God does not exist.

There is also a difference between intellectual and emotional atheism. Intellectual atheists are those that came to atheism through reason. Emotional atheists are those that came to atheism through anger (they may have experienced abuse by religious authority figures), suffering (they may have had a hard time with the problem of evil), or from betrayal (they may have felt that being Christian was a betrayal of their morals). It is important to understand these differences as you may not be able to effectively communicate with one type of atheist, but not another

What Atheists Reject

At the core of atheism is the rejection of theistic claims but atheists also reject several other concepts. Explicitly, atheists will reject the concept of a god or any higher power but most reject the entire theistic worldview. They believe the world is a closed system. There is no afterlife, no soul, and no higher power controlling things. They also reject the concept of an objective morality as they believe morality is a human quality, not a divine one.

This does not mean that atheists are immoral or that they believe murder is okay. Many atheists are very moral individuals. They may believe that it is wrong to murder because it hurts people and has a negative effect on society as a whole. However, if there is no God, then morality is subjective and everyone has their own definition and set of rules

What Atheists Affirm

It is wrong to assume that atheism is purely a negative position. Many atheists take very strong, positive stances on several matters. It is generally agreed upon that the universe is all there is. They are physical beings with physical bodies and physical thoughts. They are mortal and that nothing exists after death. They believe that morality is subjective, based on opinions.

It is important to realize that these are all natural consequences of atheism. If there is no God or higher power then there is nothing greater than humans. We are the cream of the crop. We are the top of the food chain.

This has led to what is known as the “meaning crisis” among atheists. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (who wasn’t an atheist, but predicted the eventual “death of God”) believed that once God died, there would be a crisis of meaning. The same crisis can be seen today in the modern atheist. He does not believe that there is any objective meaning to life, but he creates his own subjective meaning.

Why This Matters for Christians

Understanding atheism can help you to engage atheists more effectively. You can hold meaningful conversations with them and perhaps share the Gospel. The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, even those that are mean to us 1 Peter 3:15 “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” We are to engage atheists with gentleness and respect and not to anger them, but rather to make them curious about why we hold the views that we do.

What You Learned

Atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God, but it includes both strong atheism (asserting no God exists) and weak atheism (simply lacking belief).
Atheists hold positive beliefs about the universe, humanity, and morality, not just negative rejections of theism.
Atheists often rely on science and reason as their primary means of knowing truth, viewing naturalism as sufficient to explain reality.
Many atheists affirm a subjective, human-centered morality, while Christians believe morality is grounded in God’s character.
Understanding atheism helps Christians engage with atheists more effectively, with gentleness and respect, as commanded in 1 Peter 3:15.

Resources

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Live Study Chats

Chris's Bible Newsletter — Sun, 30 Aug 2026 13:57:46 GMT

These are the live chat conversations from our video episodes. I keep these chats updated yearly for you to reference for free at anytime.

Search chats by topic
Get the notes I covered
Expand the Chats to learn more

SEARCH THE CHAT LOGS

Subscribe to receive the live episodes and articles sent to your inbox in real time as soon as we publish them.

Stop Hiding from the Hard Questions

Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:23:58 GMT

Learning Library Resources

The Scary Word Nobody Wants To Say

Apologetics. It sounds like the act of saying sorry, right? Actually, it comes from the Greek word apologia, which means “a defense” — like a lawyer presenting a case in court. It’s not about apologizing for your faith. It’s about confidently and clearly explaining why you believe what you believe.

For a long time, I thought apologetics was for seminary professors and guys with thick glasses who memorize Greek. But here’s the reality: if you’ve ever answered a friend’s question about God, you’ve already done apologetics. You just might not have been very good at it. I know I wasn’t.

What Peter Actually Meant

The classic verse on this is 1 Peter 3:15. It says, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

Notice the word always. Not just when you feel smart. Not just when you have all the facts memorized. Always. And notice the word reason. Peter assumes your faith has a logical foundation. It’s not a blind leap into the dark. It’s a reasonable trust in a historical, risen Savior.

But here’s the kicker. The verse ends with “gentleness and respect.” That’s the part we often forget. We get so eager to prove the other person wrong that we forget to love them. You can win the argument and lose the person. That’s not a win.

Why Your Doubts Are Actually A Gift

Let’s be real. Sometimes the hardest questions come from inside our own heads. You lie awake at night and wonder, “Is this really true?”

Good. That’s a good thing.

God isn’t scared of your questions. Look at Thomas in John 20:27. Jesus doesn’t scold him for doubting. He shows him the scars. He says, “Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith. Apathy is. Doubt is a sign that you actually care about the truth.

When you wrestle with the tough stuff — the problem of evil, the reliability of the Bible, the uniqueness of Jesus — you come out the other side with a faith that’s been forged in the fire. It’s no longer a hand-me-down faith from your parents. It’s yours.

The Art of Answering With Grace

So, how do we actually do this? Paul gives us the secret in Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”

Seasoned with salt. That means it should make people thirsty for more. It’s not about dumping a truckload of facts on someone. It’s about offering a taste of the truth in a way that makes them want to take a sip.

Here’s my practical advice: Start with your own story. Nobody can argue with your testimony. You don’t need a PhD to tell someone how God changed your life. And when you don’t know an answer, just say so. “I don’t know, but I’d love to research that with you.” That’s not weakness. That’s intellectual honesty, and it builds massive credibility.

Apologetics isn’t a battle to be won. It’s a conversation to be had. It’s about removing the intellectual roadblocks so people can actually see the cross clearly.

So the next time someone asks you a hard question, don’t hide. Don’t freeze. Take a breath, remember that the Holy Spirit is with you, and open your mouth. You might just be the answer to someone’s prayer.

5 Common Questions

Q: Isn’t faith blind? A: Not at all. Biblical faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” It’s not blind belief; it’s trust based on evidence. We have historical, philosophical, and experiential reasons for our hope.

Q: What if I can’t answer every question?A: That’s completely okay. Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that God’s power is made perfect in our weakness. You don’t have to have all the answers. You just have to be willing to say, “I don’t know, but let’s find out together.”

Q: Is apologetics just about proving God exists? A: That’s a big part, but it’s only the beginning. 1 Peter 3:15 says to give a reason for the hope that is in you. It’s about sharing the why behind your joy and peace, not just winning an intellectual debate.

Q: Can I be a good apologist without a theology degree? A: Absolutely. James 1:5 says if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God. The Holy Spirit is your teacher. Start with your own story and the core facts of the gospel. You don’t need a degree to be faithful.

Q: How do I share my faith without being annoying? A: The secret is in Colossians 4:6 — let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt. It’s about timing, tone, and love. If you’re listening more than you’re talking, and you’re genuinely caring about the person, you won’t be annoying.

10 Verse Context Study Guide

1 Peter 3:15 — Write down your personal “reason for hope” in one sentence and memorize it.
Colossians 4:6 — Practice saying your testimony out loud in under 30 seconds.
2 Timothy 2:24 — Read this verse and list three attitudes you must avoid when debating.
1 Corinthians 15:14 — Find the Old Testament prophecy that this resurrection claim is pointing to.
Acts 17:22-31 — Study how Paul used a pagan altar to introduce the unknown God to the Athenians.
Jude 1:3 — Write a one-sentence defense of “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Proverbs 26:4-5 — Contrast these two verses and explain how you would apply them to a real conversation.
Matthew 22:37 — Rewrite this verse to include your mind in your daily devotional routine.
Romans 1:20 — List three things in nature that clearly point to God’s invisible attributes.
Philippians 1:7 — Reflect on how defending the gospel is actually a privilege, not a burden.

Explaining The Undeniable Link Between Christ’s Second Coming & The Millennial Reign

Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:04:39 GMT