Atheism

Does God Exist ~ William Lane Craig Debates Lawrence Krauss

Published by Papa Giorgio

Description:

North Carolina State University, March 20, 2011 – William Lane Craig (author of Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology) and Lawrence Krauss (author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing) debate the existence of God. This is the debate where Krauss famously unbuttoned his shirt and boldly told his audience that 2+2=5! Is this what it takes to be an atheist? In fact, Krauss did so embarrassingly bad he was voted as the loser* of the debate. Craig does a masterful job of exposing Krauss’ unscientific and wacky view of physics and science. Unfortunately, many atheists are parroting his arguments and thoughts. Transcript: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-stat…

* – The voting results at NCSU on who won the debate:

-516 cards turned in
-286 Dr. Craig made the clearer/better presentation
-130 Dr. Krauss made the clearer/better presentation
-100 stated it was a draw

Induction, Skepticism, Truth, and Borrowing from One Worldview [Theism] to Embolden Another [Atheistic] (Serious Saturday)

Published by Papa Giorgio

http://defendthefaith.org/

(A more in-depth convo with the Vice-President of the Cornell University Atheist Society)

Let’s consider a basic question: Why does the natural world make any sense to begin with? Albert Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Why should we be able to grasp the beauty, elegance, and complexity of our universe?

Einstein understood a basic truth about science, namely, that it relies upon certain philosophical assumptions about the natural world. These assumptions include the existence of an external world that is orderly and rational, and the trustworthiness of our minds to grasp that world. Science cannot proceed apart from these assumptions, even though they cannot be independently proven. Oxford professor John C. Lennox asks a penetrating question, “At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly. Without this deep conviction science would not be possible. So we are entitled to ask: Where does the conviction come from?”” Why is the world orderly? And why do our minds comprehend this order?

Toward the end of The God Delusion, Dawkins admits that since we are the product of natural selection, our senses cannot be fully trusted. After all, according to Darwinian evolution, our senses have been formed to aid survival, not necessarily to deliver true belief. Since a human being has been cobbled together through the blind process of natural selection acting on random mutation, says Dawkins, it’s unlikely that our views of the world are completely true. Outspoken philosopher of neuro-science Patricia Churchland agrees:

The principle chore of brains is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing [the world] is advantageous so long as it… enhances the organism’s chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost.

Dawkins is on the right track to suggest that naturalism should lead people to be skeptical about trusting their senses. Dawkins just doesn’t take his skepticism far enough. In Miracles, C. S. Lewis points out that knowledge depends upon the reliability of our mental faculties. If human reasoning is not trustworthy, then no scientific conclusions can be considered true or false. In fact, we couldn’t have any knowledge about the world, period. Our senses must be reliable to acquire knowledge of the world, and our reasoning faculties must be reliable to process the acquired knowledge. But this raises a particularly thorny dilemma for atheism. If the mind has developed through the blind, irrational, and material process of Darwinian evolution, then why should we trust it at all? Why should we believe that the human brain—the outcome of an accidental process—actually puts us in touch with reality? Science cannot be used as an answer to this question, because science itself relies upon these very assumptions.

Even Charles Darwin was aware of this problem: “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” If Darwinian evolution is true, we should distrust the cognitive faculties that make science possible.

Sean Mcdowell and Jonathan Morrow, Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2010), 38.

Even Darwin had some misgivings about the reliability of human beliefs. He wrote, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Given unguided evolution, “Darwin’s Doubt” is a reasonable one. Even given unguided or blind evolution, it’s difficult to say how probable it is that creatures—even creatures like us—would ever develop true beliefs. In other words, given the blindness of evolution, and that its ultimate “goal” is merely the survival of the organism (or simply the propagation of its genetic code), a good case can be made that atheists find themselves in a situation very similar to Hume’s.

The Nobel Laureate and physicist Eugene Wigner echoed this sentiment: “Certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.” That is, atheists have a reason to doubt whether evolution would result in cognitive faculties that produce mostly true beliefs. And if so, then they have reason to withhold judgment on the reliability of their cognitive faculties. Like before, as in the case of Humean agnostics, this ignorance would, if atheists are consistent, spread to all of their other beliefs, including atheism and evolution. That is, because there’s no telling whether unguided evolution would fashion our cognitive faculties to produce mostly true beliefs, atheists who believe the standard evolutionary story must reserve judgment about whether any of their beliefs produced by these faculties are true. This includes the belief in the evolutionary story. Believing in unguided evolution comes built in with its very own reason not to believe it.

This will be an unwelcome surprise for atheists. To make things worse, this news comes after the heady intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins claims evolution provided for thoughtful unbelievers. The very story that promised to save atheists from Hume’s agnostic predicament has the same depressing ending.

It’s obviously difficult for us to imagine what the world would be like in such a case where we have the beliefs that we do and yet very few of them are true. This is, in part, because we strongly believe that our beliefs are true (presumably not all of them are, since to err is human—if we knew which of our beliefs were false, they would no longer be our beliefs).

Suppose you’re not convinced that we could survive without reliable belief-forming capabilities, without mostly true beliefs. Then, according to Plantinga, you have all the fixins for a nice argument in favor of God’s existence For perhaps you also think that—given evolution plus atheism—the probability is pretty low that we’d have faculties that produced mostly true beliefs. In other words, your view isn’t “who knows?” On the contrary, you think it’s unlikely that blind evolution has the skill set for manufacturing reliable cognitive mechanisms. And perhaps, like most of us, you think that we actually have reliable cognitive faculties and so actually have mostly true beliefs. If so, then you would be reasonable to conclude that atheism is pretty unlikely. Your argument, then, would go something like this: if atheism is true, then it’s unlikely that most of our beliefs are true; but most of our beliefs are true, therefore atheism is probably false.

Notice something else. The atheist naturally thinks that our belief in God is false. That’s just what atheists do. Nevertheless, most human beings have believed in a god of some sort, or at least in a supernatural realm. But suppose, for argument’s sake, that this widespread belief really is false, and that it merely provides survival benefits for humans, a coping mechanism of sorts. If so, then we would have additional evidence—on the atheist’s own terms—that evolution is more interested in useful beliefs than in true ones. Or, alternatively, if evolution really is concerned with true beliefs, then maybe the widespread belief in God would be a kind of “evolutionary” evidence for his existence.

You’ve got to wonder.

Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith: To the Head (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 44-45.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1952), 38-39.

Scientist & Professor David Bartholomew critiques Victor Stenger and his book `God: The Failed Hypothesis` (Part 2) ~ William Lane Craig Bonus

Published by Papa Giorgio

Some of Professor Bartholomew’s writings:

  • with S.E. Finer and H.B. Berrington Backbench Opinion in the House of Commons, 1955-1959. Oxford: Pergamon Press;
  • Stochastic Models for Social Processes, 1967, 3rd edn 1982;
  • with E.E. Bassett, Let’s Look at the Figures: the quantitative approach to human affairs, Harmondsworth Middlesex: Penguin books (Dutch translation, 1971).
  • (jtly) Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions
  • 1972; (jtly) Statistical Techniques for Manpower Planning, 1979, 2nd edn 1991
  • Mathematical Methods in Social Science, 1981
  • God of Chance, 1984;
  • Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis, 1987, 2nd edn (jtly) 1999;
  • Uncertain Belief, 1996;
  • The Statistical Approach to Social Measurement, 1996;
  • (jtly) The Analysis and Interpretation of Multivariate Data for Social Scientists, 2002, 2nd edn 2008;
  • Measuring Intelligence: facts and fallacies, 2004
  • Measurement (4 vols), 2006
  • God, Chance and Purpose: Can God Have It Both Ways? Cambridge University Press 2008

BONUS! William Lane Craig debates an issue of:

“Quantum Logic”

“Quantum Nothing”

The `High Pope of Darwinism` (Richard Dawkins) Is Caught in Tactic He Himself Uses Against Christians (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via The Blaze!

What a great point! from the video description:

Richard Dawkins and Giles Fraser discuss religious life in Britain, on the Today programme on BBC Radio (14/02/12).

Whilst declaring his incredulity that Christians do not know what the first book of the New Testament is, Fraser deftly counters by asking Dawkins what the full title of The Origin of Species is…

Here is the comments from The Blaze:

The epic clash between the two men, which was carried live on BBC Radio 4 in England, was centered upon a recent poll that purportedly measured Christianity in Britain. The controversial study was commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which is run by the well-known non-believer. Among the findings, the study alleges that Christianity has lost its standing in the European nation. The study apparently found that nearly two-thirds of individuals couldn’t name the first book of the New Testament (Matthew).

Fraser, though, took issue with this indicator, claiming that it was improper for Dawkins to assume that a failure to name this book means that these individuals aren’t Christians. It was at this point that the priest asked the atheist to name Darwin’s well-known evolutionary book.

“Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’, I’m sure you could tell me that,” Fraser said.

“Yes, I could,” Dawkins responded, clearly indicating that he was ready for the challenge.

“Go on then,” Fraser poked.

And this is where the situation turned awkward, as Dawkins simply couldn’t make his way through the book’s elongated title.

“‘On The Origin Of Species’ … Uh. With, Oh God,” Dawkins stumbled. “On The Origin Of Species.’ There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

Fraser, of course, seized upon the opportunity to make his point that not being able to name a book doesn‘t necessarily have anything to do with one’s deeply-held beliefs and convictions.

“You’re the high pope of Darwinism,” he said. “If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all.‘ It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.”

There is a lesson in this, however, pointed out to me via a cyber friend who has a wonderful apologetics site, he says this as an instruction both to me and to others:

Seems that the recent fracas with Dawkins and Fraser is good reason to lay down some brother rebuking of UK “Christians” more than an occasion to focus on Dawkins.

Shudder to think but I tend to agree with him more than Fraser. Since when is a Christian a person who self identifies as one? Can I call myself a tennis player if I have no tennis equipment, reject tennis rules and never get out on the court and play?

UK Christians have only themselves to blame for the fact that a personage such as Dawkins can call them out on their lack of possessing anything to do with Christianity except for an empty label. Fraser’ view comes very close to affirming that Dawkins himself is a Christian as Dawkins refers to himself as a “cultural Christian” meaning he rejects the same things that UK Christians do, he accepts that which they do (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but sees cultural benefits, etc.

Great points!

Atheist’s Challenge Accepted ~ Unicorns

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Scottish Coat of Arms)

Before beginning this import from my old blog, let me say, the video I am updating this with is EXCELLENT! Not only can some creatures not known by modern man existed in the past (as my post shows), but the most plausible explanation is a change in definitions over the past couple hundred years. Good stuff Maynard.

This is a favorite of atheists, that is, to say that believing in God is just like believing in unicorns. The story use to be: believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause. But this analogy didn’t work to the atheists advantage… so they changed the story line.

However, this is not what the Christian is stating, and the analogy about Santa Clause will illustrate (which is why they changed the story line). First though, let me read from 1 Corinthians 15:14-17:

(14) And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (15) More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. (16) For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. (17) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Paul here is saying that this person Jesus is a historical being, and that his resurrection happened in history. Even the most ardent skeptic knows that Jesus existed in actual history, whereas we can say most probably — I will discuss this at the end — that unicorns do not exist. So the unicorn analogy is already falling apart. Which brings me to Jolly Old St. Nick.

Let us start with my favorite St. Nicholas who is said to have been from Asia Minor in what is now Turkey. He was a monk who rose to become the Bishop of Myra in the 4th century. Known for his generosity and compassion he worked to improve the lot of his fellow man. Stories and legends abound on the various things he is said to have done in helping the poor ranging from secret donations placed in shoes or stockings of the needy to protecting sailors at sea. He was imprisoned for ten years by the Romans as this was still a time of Christian persecution and was only released by the Emperor Constantine who was to later become Christian. He died Dec. 6th and that day is celebrated as St. Nicholas’s Day in much of Europe. His popularity only continued to grow following his death so that by the Middle Ages there were several thousand churches bearing his name.

http://www.history-of-santa-claus.com/

This is closer to the analogy that we are looking for. Jesus REALLY existed; a monk named Nicholas REALLY existed. Horses REALLY exist.

There may be other discussions more valid here regarding whom Jesus of Nazareth was, but at least we need to realize that the unicorn analogy just doesn’t work. This puts mankind’s historic search for answers in a light not becoming of a persons intellect.

We are not applying Big-Bang cosmology and the beginning of the universe, the laws of causality, thermodynamics, the weak and strong nuclear forces (etc.) to a unicorn – which, if a historical mammal, would be within the space/time continuum… and thus subject to the laws of nature – but rather, we need a being that is the source or explanation for these historical events. We are looking to larger explanations as well as God’s actual dealing with events of history.

So the unicorn analogy would look more like this in the theistic sense of the explanation.

A friend said he met someone who said they saw a unicorn… in fact, he saw a family of them. They left the scene but there were many other people who saw it as well. In fact they wrote about it. Also discovered were hoof prints and a few shed horns. In fact, the government has tried to cover up this fact and started killing the eyewitnesses. They kill them because even under the most extreme torture conditions they are not recanting their stories. And we all know that if there were a group of people (say, 511 people) that would make up such a story that under torture conditions one of them would admit to lying. Because it is logical to think that people would die for a lie thinking it was true, but they wouldn’t die for a lie knowing it was a lie they fabricated. One bloke was tortured and then crucified on an upside down – broken – cross (Peter). Surely he would have recanted and settled this whole thing for the Roman Empire if he were knowingly lying.

This analogy is a bit closer to what is claimed in Scripture. Mind you the analogy is still a bit flawed, but at least the story line is closer to the truth of the HISTORICAL line of thinking. I will post this and a few other “pros” on my site for those who wish to actually study the issue instead of merely being critical of it. I am confident the evidence leads to God in general, and to Jesus specifically.

Below is just an historical example of this debate from the Grecian days. It is still relevant to this day, and a mammal that is subject to nature itself (like a unicorn) just doesn’t cut it in regards to explanatory power.

Plato wrote, “Some people, I believe, account for all things which have come to exist, all things which are coming into existence now, and all things which will do so in the future, by attributing them either to nature, … or chance.” Epicurean materialism was taught in the Stoic school founded by Zeno in 308 B.C.. And if there is a positive writing, there must be a negative one it is commenting on, for instance:

“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? Our friend Posidonius as you know has recently made a globe which in its revolution shows the movements of the sun and stars and planets, by day and night, just as they appear in the sky. Now if someone were to take this globe and show it to the people of Britain or Scythia [barbarians at this time] would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious intelligence.” (Cicero, 106 B.C.–43 B.C.)

I hope one can see that the question of how we got here and us asking “what our purpose is in this existence we call life” is beyond a simple unicorn analogy. Not only that, but whomever makes the unicorn analogy should realize how un-educated this challenge really is.

Now to change the story a bit… I said that at this time we can say that unicorns do not exist, but history does hint at such a creature, since written records have been kept in fact. So it would be interesting to see if we can add a fossil find to the drawings and descriptions found through the historical record for creatures that are similar to the horse/ass that have a horn. Let’s just say the jury is still out.

Scottish Royal Arms

King James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I when she died childless in 1603, effectively uniting Scotland and England beneath one rule. The Scottish Royal Arms had, up to that point, used two unicorns as shield supporters. The English Arms had used a variety of supporters, but most frequently had included a lion. In a tactful gesture then, he placed a lion upon the left of the new Arms, and a unicorn upon the right. This was a potent bit of symbolism, for both the lion and the unicorn had long been thought to be deadly enemies: both regarded as king of the beasts, the unicorn rules through harmony while the lion rules through might, It came to symbolise a reconciliation between the Scottish unicorn and the English lion that the two should share the rule.

In 416BC, the physician Ctesias set out from his native town of Cnidus to attend the Persian King Darius II. There he stayed for eighteen years, and learned of many wonderful things during his time at court. Upon returning to Cnidus, he wote a book of his experiences which he called the Indica. In it is the earliest surviving written account of a Unicorn:

“There are in India certain wild asses which are as large as horses, and larger. Their bodies are white, their heads are dark red, and their eyes dark blue. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length. The dust filed from this horn is administered in a potion as a protection against deadly drugs.”

The great philospher Aristotle, whose words were taken so seriously that they were widely held as gospel truth a thousand years later, could have destroyed the infant legend with a sentence, whatever the truth of the matter. However, he confirms its existence by a passing comment, which, though flawed in content, proved that this great man of learning clearly believed there was such a creature.

“We have never seen an animal with a solid hoof and two horns, and there are only a few that have a solid hoof and one horn, as the Indian Ass and the Oryx.”

The “Indian Ass” is none other than Ctesias’ Unicorn. Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, mentions Unicorns, saying of them that there is:

“…An exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros, which has a stag’s head, elephant’s feet, and a boar’s tail, the rest of its body being like that of a horse. It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.”

There are some indications here that he was confusing the creature with a rhinoceros, a creature known to his race but often confused because the rhino was a known animal and the Unicorn was not! It never crossed the minds of many scholars that they might be talking of one and the same creature!

The same mistake has been attributed to the Roman scholar Aelian, who lived some five hundred years after Aristotle. He wrote a book about animals that mentioned the Unicorn quite frequently. In one passage he states:

“I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. The body of this animal is white, except on the head, which is red, while the eyes are azure. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length, which is white at the base, crimson at the top, and black between. These variegated horns are used as drinking cups by the Indians. …It is said that whosoever drinks from this kind of horn is safe from all incurable diseases such as convulsions and the so-called holy disease, and that he cannot be killed by poison.”

Elsewhere he says,

“They say that there are mountains in the interior regions of India which are inaccessible to men and therefore full of wild beasts. Among these is the Unicorn, which they call the kartajan [Sanscrit: Lord of the desert]. This animal is as large as a full-grown horse, and it has a mane, tawny hair, feet like those of an elephant, and the tail of a goat. It is exceedingly swift of foot. Between its brows there stands a single black horn tapering to a very sharp point. Where other animals approach it it is gentle, but it fights with those of its own kind. It seeks out the most deserted places and wanders there alone.”

Other notable Greeks and Romans have noted the unicorn: Julius Caesar for example, who said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest. However, for all the weight these mighty scholars and writers wielded in the literary world, the Unicorn was not well known among the ordinary people. It was yet a beast of books and libraries, and there it might have dwindled into obscurity and never been known to us….

….The unicorn had actually long been a Royal Beast associated with kings and rulers.

Aelian had said that only great men could own the cups made from his horn, and Philostatus had stated that only the kings of India might hunt them. The Physiologus mentions that the captive unicorn is taken before the King, and the Chinese Ki-lin has always been associated with Emperors. The Bible (Daniel chapter 8) relates the following vision:

“And behold, a he-goat came from the West on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.”

The goat in question is later interpreted as “the king of Grecia”, Alexander the Great, and it is also interesting to note that Alexander was once gifted with a unicorn by Queen Candace as tribute. We know that Caesar also wrote of unicorns. Ghengis Khan, about to invade India, saw a unicorn and took it as an omen that India was not to be his. He turned back immediately….

No invisible pink unicorns here!

Does God Exist? William Lane Craig debates Professor Peter Millican

Published by Papa Giorgio

http://reasonablefaith.org – This debate on “Does God Exist?” took place in front of a capacity audience at the Great Hall, University of Birmingham. It was recorded on Friday 21st October 2011 as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig.

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California and a leading philosopher of religion. Peter Millican is Gilbert Ryle Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, University of Oxford and a noted scholar in studies of Hume.

The debate was hosted by the University of Birmingham Student Philosophy Society, and the debate was moderated by Professor Carl Chinn.

For more information on the Reasonable Faith Tour see http://www.bethinking.org/craig

`It is our common fate` Christopher Hitchens, R.I.P. (1949-2011)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Art Source)

I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.

All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will [a grumbling] mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood…

—excerpted from The Problem of Pain and The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), included in The Quotable Lewis, 1989 Tyndale

In a sense, the concept of hell gives meaning to our lives. It tells us that the moral choices we make day by day have eternal significance, that our behavior has consequences lasting to eternity, that God Himself takes our choices seriously.

The doctrine of hell is not just some dusty theological holdover from the Middle Ages. It has significant social consequences. Without a conviction of ultimate justice, people’s sense of moral obligation dissolves, and social bonds are broke.

Of course, these considerations are not the most important reason to believe in hell. Jesus repeatedly issued warnings that if we turn away from God in this life, we will be alienated from God eternally.

And yet, although “the wages of sin is death,” Paul also says that “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). While breath remains, it is never too late to turn to God in repentance, and when we ask for forgiveness, God eagerly grants it.

—excerpted from Answers to Your Kids’ Questions, by Chuck Colson, 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries.

We may rest assured that no one will suffer in hell who could by any means have been won to Christ in this life. God leaves no stone unturned to rescue all who would respond to the convicting and wooing of the Holy Spirit.

As for the fate of [the damned] being eternal, it could not be otherwise. Death is not the cessation of existence but the continuation of the eternal being with which God lovingly endowed man–but now in painful separation from God and all else in utter darkness and loneliness.

—excerpted from In Defense of the Faith, by Dave Hunt, 1996 Harvest House Publishers

The Bible says that God prepared hell for the devil and his demonic cohorts (Matthew 25:41), that He is “…not wishing for any [person] to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (II Peter 3:9), and that He has done everything possible to save us from that terrible, terrible place. Yet in the end God will not violate or overrule the deliberate choice of those who consciously and willfully turn away from Him.

—Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.”

—Jesus Christ, John 3:16-19, NASV Bible