While there are a number of arguments for the existence of a divine being, none of them require that there be only one divine being. Why should we think there is only one God, then?
The simplest reason to think there is only one God is the principle of parsimony: Do not multiply entities beyond what is needed to adequately explain the effect in question. Since only one God is needed to explain the origin of the universe, there is no reason to believe there is more than one God. The burden of proof would be on anyone wanting to postulate the existence of more than one God to explain why we should think there is more than one God.
While the principle of parsimony is instructive, it is not conclusive. It is based on probability, not logical necessity. It’s one thing to say no more than one God is necessary to explain reality, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is only one God. After all, only one human is needed to explain how a house got built, but the fact of the matter is that more than one human was involved. So are there any logical arguments that would logically require the existence of only one God?
Only the resurrection of Jesus from the dead can explain why Christians believed Jesus was divine. It also gives credence to the fact that Jesus claimed to be God.
When someone supports abortion on the basis that “nobody knows when life begins,” my immediate reaction is to immediately correct their misinformation with the
A simple reflection tells us that something must be eternal. After all, if you start with nothing, you’ll always end up with nothing. But we ended up with something, which means we must have started with something. Put another way, since something exists now something must have always existed. There could never be a time when absolutely nothing existed. Something must be eternal, but what is that something?
Could the human population have originated from two people? Many say science has proven this to be impossible and are reinterpreting the Biblical narrative to fit the current scientific thinking. In this
I recently finished reading Greg Koukl’s new book,
When it comes to neo-Darwinian evolution, the question isn’t whether Darwin’s proposed mechanism of biological change is true – we know it is because we observe it in nature. The question is whether it can explain what Darwin thought it explained: the diversity of life.
“…submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)
For many years this proverb has been misinterpreted, probably because the KJV translates it “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” What we typically hear preached from this verse is that a church must have a long-term goal and plan if they wish to thrive rather than perish. That may be good advice, but that’s not the meaning of this proverb.
Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful. (Colossians 3:15)
Liberals love to label those who have ethical objections to cloning, doubts about man-made global warming, and the like as “science deniers” and “climate change deniers.” Matt Walsh suggests that we start calling those who deny that one’s biological sex determines their actual gender as “biology deniers.” And in this case, the term is an accurate description rather than a derogatory, non-descriptive insult. Those who want to normalize transgender thoughts are truly denying biology. They affirm that someone who is biologically male is actually female.
Those who are opposed to state and federal defunding of Planned Parenthood argue that these dollars are not paying for abortions, but contraception and other female-related health services. So why would pro-lifers want to defund this? Do we just hate women? Do we want to ensure that more women are “punished” for premarital sex by getting pregnant? Of course not. What we understand is that the grants Planned Parenthood receives for their non-abortion services indirectly funds their abortion business. To see why, imagine for a moment that the government provided grants to churches to pay for all of their office supplies, marriage counselors, city permits, and building repairs. Would the pro-Planned Parenthood-funding crowd agree with the government that this is not supporting religion? Of course not! They realize that the money a church saves by not having to pay for those government-funded items will be redirected to evangelistic efforts. So while the government’s funds would not be directly funding Christian evangelism, they are indirectly funding it. The same is true of federal funding of Planned Parenthood. While these funds are not directly responsible for aborting babies, they are indirectly responsible because Planned Parenthood can use all of the money the government saved them and direct it to their abortion business. And when 
Great op-ed