Can Science Answer Everything?

In an age of growing scientism, we often find that many atheists won’t believe in something unless it can be scientifically confirmed. This should be called to attention because if things cannot be evidentially proven by science, doesn’t that mean God is out of the question?  Since there is no test that we can run or satellite we can send out to locate God, is the possibility of God impossible since it cannot be proven empirically by science that there is a God?  In addition to asking whether we should believe in God despite there not being 100% empirical evidence proving that God does exist, we should also inquire as to whether or not this is a wise way to approach any problem.  Should we solely rely upon the results of science in order for our senses to allow for potential theistic considerations?  These are many questions that should be looked at more closely and thoughtfully considered before placing too many of our eggs in the science basket. 

Please, don’t misunderstand me.  I love science.  It has validated the claims theists have been making for hundreds of years.  However, is it still rational to place stock in God despite science not being able to empirically prove there is an existent God?  And, are there things science is incapable of proving?  The answer to both of those questions is YES. 

In the above video, we see that Dr. William Lane Craig lists off five things science cannot prove but we are all rational to accept.  I’ve listed the five things science cannot prove and included an example:

1.      Logical and mathematical truths (science presupposes logic and math)

2.      Metaphysical truths (there are minds other than my own, the external world is real, the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age)

3.      Ethical beliefs about statements of value (Whether the Nazi scientists in Germany did anything evil as opposed to doing anything good)

4.      Aesthetic judgments (beautiful vs. ugly)

5.      Science cannot be justified by the scientific method¹

Notice that many people who make the claim that science is all there is and say that science is the only reliable vehicle for confirming anything about life often discredit the usage of philosophy.  You often hear prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, and Lawrence Krauss discount the importance of philosophy simply because they have anointed science with supreme kingship over all other methods of data retrieval and sincerely believe that science can prove everything.  In fact, they’ve gone so far as to declare that it isn’t a fact unless it can be scientifically proven. 

To look at only one example of how science fails to answer every single question we can look to the moral argument.  As said in the third objection posed by Dr. Craig, science cannot determine what is and is not moral.  As prominent atheist Sam Harris has successfully shown in his book, “The Moral Landscape”, you may only scientifically prove what helps organisms flourish and not how their morals are founded in a sense of objective moral right and wrong².   

In conclusion, scientism fails to view the entire picture.  In partaking in a worldview that only allows scientific findings, you are willingly removing yourself from important philosophical conclusions which may have theistic implications.  It is safe to say that God is still a rational conclusion despite the scientific evidence not showing that God is empirically true.  However, there are no absolutes in life.  The best we can do is to objectively view the evidence that we have accessible to us, scientific and non-scientific.  Needless to say, science has brought theists large amounts of credibility with the discovery of the big bang, recognition of the fine-tuning of the universe, identifying the complexity contained within our DNA, and our vast understanding of biology, geology, astronomy, and cosmology.  While science is a tool that has granted us insight into God, it shouldn’t be viewed as though it is the only method of insight and nor should it be treated as a monopoly on information as many atheists claim that it is.

Notes

1 William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins debate (April 1998 in Atlanta, GA)

2 William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011

Misusing “Good”

In April 2011 at the University of Notre Dame, William Lane Craig and Sam Harris came together to debate the topic, “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?”.  Oddly enough, atheist Harris contends that there are objective moral values and duties in this universe and wrote his book, “The Moral Landscape”, to explain how objective moral values and duties can be explained from an atheist perspective¹.  This is odd because many atheists, like Richard Dawkins, often contend that there are no objective moral values because there isn’t a God in which to provide the foundation for their objectivity.  As Dawkins suggests, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being”².  Among atheist scholars, Harris is a minority in his viewpoint that the atheistic worldview can ground objective moral values and duties. 

It needs to be identified that Harris’ reasoning for acknowledging “objective” morals in the atheist worldview is because he is using the word, “good”, in a non-moral sense.  Harris often refers to the moral quality of “good” as synonymous with the property of creaturely flourishing.  However, given that creaturely flourishing and moral “good” are separate, how is it that Harris contends that objective morals are still grounded?³  In the above video of the debate, Dr. Craig describes this objection in detail regarding creaturely flourishing not being identical to moral “good” as Harris suggests.

It seems that Harris believes that we have moral duties; however there isn’t any reason for anyone to think that we have moral duties under atheism because there isn’t a foundation set forth to construct those moral duties.  Moral obligations arise because of a competent authority.   Dr. Craig uses the example of getting pulled over by a police officer.  When a police officer turns on his sirens and requests that we pull to the side of the road, we are legally obligated to perform the duty of pulling our vehicle to the side of the road.  By contrast, if a pedestrian requested for us to pull to the side of the road, we have no legal obligation to perform the duty of pulling to the side of the road³.  The same analogy can be used for atheism.  Under atheism, there isn’t a competent authority to place any moral duties upon us while in theism there is.  That is what separates objective and subjective in this case on moral objectivity. 

During the debate, Craig made use of the Divine Command Theory (DCT).  DCT states that our moral duties are a result of the commands of a just and loving God⁴.  In which case, the DCT derives an “ought” from an “is” because God commanded that we ought to do something because it is commanded by God.  Many may ask, “why are we obligated simply because God commanded it?”, which goes back to moral duties being grounded in a the competent authority that was discussed earlier⁴.  Under an atheistic worldview, there is no ought because there isn’t a competent authority in which to ground “ought”. 

Craig mentions repeatedly that Harris was confusing moral ontology with moral semantics, which is the primary cause in Harris’ misuse of the word “good”.  Moral ontology addresses the foundation of moral values and duties while moral semantics addresses the meaning of the moral terms³.  Simply dealing with moral semantics will be able to differentiate the meanings between moral terms but will not be able to address how moral values and duties have an objective foundation.  When Harris uses “good” and “bad”, he often is referring to a pleasurable life and a miserable life, however these are not moral uses of the word. A pleasurable life of creaturely flourishing isn’t the same as being morally good³. 

Hence, Sam Harris falls short of explaining how objective morality exists in a world without God.  Giving examples of how creaturely flourishing is good fails to truly explain how morality is objective in an atheistic worldview.  While creaturely flourishing is a good thing, however, think of the consequences of identifying creaturely flourishing and moral good as the same.  To illustrate a hypothetical example, if it was shown that the greatest amount of human flourishing occurred when disabled individuals were removed from society by means of euthanasia, it would be morally irresponsible for us not to euthanize these individuals simply because more humans would flourish without them.  I don’t think anybody would agree that would be a moral thing to do.  Not even Dr. Harris.

Grounding “good” in the act of creaturely flourishing is simply an act of creative desperation on behalf of Sam Harris.  Harris’ use of the word “good” gives people the illusion that he is using it morally, but upon closer examination, we find that he isn’t.  He is faced with how we can derive an “ought” from an “is” without a foundation for the “ought”.  On atheism, there is no competent authority suggesting that we ought to be morally good.  As theists, whether we are right or wrong, we can hold to the position that if we are wrong we can acknowledge that morals are illusory and nothing more.  Misusing the term “good” does nothing more than skew the meaning of its reality. 

Notes

1 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010),

2 Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1996), p. 133 and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden,” Lecture 4 of 7 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992),

3 William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011

4  William Lane Craig, Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “ought” from an “Is” from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theistic-ethics-derive-an-ought-from-an-is

The Multiverse Theory

So, have you ever thought that there could be an infinite amount of other universes in existence and we just happen to be the lucky universe that happened to have the winning combination of constants and quantities needed for habitable life?  While many of you likely haven’t, there are some who have and have made a theory out of it called, “The Multiverse Theory”.  The theory suggests that there is an infinite amount of universes in existence.  However, why would such a theory need to be theorized?  Are there signs of another observable universe?  The answer is no, there is no scientific evidence for other universes in existence.  The reason for this theory is likely because it serves as a solution to why the fine-tuning is present within our universe.   The key is that if there are an infinite number of universes, it would be perfectly rational to believe that one of those universes would be habitable for intelligible life.  Advocates of the multiverse theory find this theory to be incredibly useful because it accounts for why the universe came into existence from nothing by chance with the initial conditions being fine-tuned without design².                                                                                                                                                                                     
The prominent theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne commented on the multiverse theory:

“Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction, these other worlds are unknowable to us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual responsibility – and to my mind greater economy and elegance-would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so” ¹

Given Polkinhorne’s valid assessment of the multiverse theory, there are other objections posed against the multiverse theory.  For the sake of argument, suppose that the multiverse theory is true.  Is the mechanism that generates these universes considered to be a random accident void of fine-tuning?  If the advocates of the multiverse theory consider the multiverse to be fine-tuned, they find themselves in the same boat they were in when attempting to explain away the fine-tuning of our universe by positing a multiverse². 

In addition to the self-defeating nature of the multiverse itself, most theorists are skeptical of the multiverse theory.  It has been shown by the the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem that the universe (even a multiverse if it exists) had a beginning².  Given that the multiverse would have had a beginning if it existed, there would only be a finite amount of universes contained within this multiverse because the multiverse would be finite in nature.  Given that there would only be a finite number of universes within the multiverse, how are we to reasonably infer that this multiverse would have popped out a life-sustain universe by mere chance?²

Before I discuss the last objection, I’d like to give you a brief summary on the second law of thermodynamics in order to better understand it.  The second law of thermodynamics states that unless energy is being fed into a system (our universe in this case), that system will eventually become increasingly disorderedly².  What that means is that our universe’s energy will eventually be spread so far throughout the universe that no life will be possible and the universe will have an equal amount of energy throughout the entire universe until it reaches maximum entropy.  Entropy represents the unavailability of the universe’s thermodynamic energy left within it.  For example, high-entropy would indicate that there is a lower amount of energy left in the universe while low-entropy would indicate that there is a greater amount of energy left in the universe.  As the energy spreads throughout the universe, the ultimate result of the second law of thermodynamics is called, “the heat death”, due to maximum entropy². 

The third objection is expressed firmly by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose who calculates that the odds of our universe’s initial low-entropy (high amounts of energy) conditions by mere chance is one out of 10^{10 (123)3}.  In addition, the odds of our solar system forming by a collision of random particles is one out of 10^10(60)3.  Given these statistics, it would be much easier to comprehend an orderly universe the size of our solar system rather than the immense universe that is finely tuned for life such as the one we currently reside in and observe². 

In conclusion, there are many reasons to think the multiverse isn’t a viable option.  While it is viable for atheists in search of an explanation for why the constants and quantities of the universe are so immaculately fine-tuned by chance, it is plagued with flaws that it can’t be reconciled scientifically.  However, these types of theories that attempt to explain away the fine-tuning are really complimenting theism in an underhanded way.  The fine-tuning  of the universe is so incomprehensively great that it is acknowledged that mere chance isn’t a rational explanation.    

On a personal note, I included the video below because it hilariously illustrates the absurdity of the multiverse theory. 

Notes

1 John Polkinghorne, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology (London; SPCK) Page 80

2 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 5

3 Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005) 762-5.

Is Atheism a Faith?

I’ve had dialogue with many atheists over the years and most of them label their disbelief in God as a stance rather than a belief.  Surprisingly, this same stance is taken by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Michael Shermer, and Christopher Hitchens. They claim that their atheistic stance carries no faith along with it.  I’ve even been told that atheism isn’t a worldview.  Many atheists simply chalk up their non-belief in God as a certainty not up for debate.  This certainty is because they believe that all the scientific evidence is in their favor while also believing that theists have nothing but blind faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.  However, are they justified in thinking that atheism isn’t a belief system? 

Below, I’ve listed three different definitions from respected sources:

Oxford Dictionary:
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods¹

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Atheism: The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God²

Encyclopedia Britannica:
Atheism: The critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings³

 Given the three definitions I’ve listed, it is accurate to say that an atheist denies the existence of God.  However, to deny God’s existence would logically follow that an atheist believes there is no God.    In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens discuss the topic of atheism vs. agnosticism vs. verificationism.  Hitchens makes the statement, “there is no claim that I know how to make that says, “atheism is true” because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn’t true” but then Hitchens states a couple seconds later that atheism “is not in itself a belief or a system”.  The late Hitchens, one of the four horsemen of the new atheism movement, states that atheism isn’t a belief system however he cannot provide substantive evidence to support his atheistic claim during his exchange with Dr. Craig.

 Atheism is a belief system despite what the atheists might believe.  Hitchens makes an extremely valid and revealing point, if he cannot justify the claim that “atheism is true”, wouldn’t that infer that there must be faith involved in being an atheist?  Maybe this confidence in the claim that there is no God is being propagated by the atheistic worldview.  That’s to say, interpreting all knowledge and data that is personally gathered through an atheist filter so that all considerations that include God sound completely absurd.  The atheist finds the universe to be a closed system that is void of a transcendent Creator while the theist values the Genesis 1:1 account and appreciates the universe through the paradigm of God while observing Him in His creation⁴.  Both worldviews generally result in an interpretation of science that reflects their worldview, however both cannot be true. 

 In conclusion, we find that the facts more plausibly reinforce the theists’ worldview.  We find atheistic scientists jumping through hoops in an attempt to justify how our universe came into being ex nihilo by saying that the universe came from nothing, the universe created itself, the multiverse theory, and many others.  In addition, people have gone great lengths to disprove the historicity of Jesus by coming up with absurd conspiracy theories that don’t have enough plausibility, explanatory power, or explanatory scope to outweigh the resurrection hypothesis.  The fact is, it is perfectly reasonable to place your faith and trust in God given the evidence at hand.  That is what makes atheism a faith rather than a fact.

Notes

1 Definition of Atheism (Oxford Dictionaries). http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

2 Atheism and agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1

3 Atheism (Encyclopedia Britannica). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

4 John Lennox, God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God? (Oxford, England: Lion Hudson plc) Chapter 1

The Redefinition of Nothing

Believe or not, many atheists are contending that it was possible that the universe came into existence out of nothing.  One reason for this contention could be because of the influence of Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State Universe and the author of, “A Universe from Nothing”.  Dr. Krauss has made this view very popular in recent years.  In addition to his scholarly credentials, Dr. Krauss is also an outspoken atheist.  His view of the universe coming into existence out of nothing bodes conveniently well with his atheistic worldview because he seemingly removes the need for a Creator.  However, one may wonder how someone such as Dr. Krauss can come up with such a radical conclusion.  The answer is in the new definition of “nothing”.    

In the debate between Dr. Krauss and Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Krauss made this remark about the origin of the universe, “But it (the universe) can come into being out of nothingness because nothing is unstable”¹.  When Dr. Krauss refers to “nothing” he is referring to the quantum vacuum.  The quantum vacuum is what Dr. Craig describes as, “empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a rich, physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure”¹.  So, if “nothing” isn’t really nothing, why is Dr. Krauss using it as such?  It is terribly confusing to those who don’t understand the terminology of physics.  As Dr. Craig described the way Dr. Krauss uses the term “nothing”, “This is the grossly misleading use of “nothingness””¹. 

Above is a video of Dr. Craig describing this inappropriate use of the term “nothing”.  Many atheists that have adopted this theory seem to be confused as to how “nothing” should properly be used in a sentence, which is likely due to Dr. Krauss’ propagation of the incorrect usage. 

Ultimately, why is this misusage of terminology such a big deal?  It is a big deal because people are becoming convinced that the universe popped into being uncaused.  Dr. Krauss labeling “nothing” as the quantum vacuum is incorrect.  The quantum vacuum is something, and something has a beginning, which is therefore caused.  In 2003, a theorem called the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem was developed by three leading cosmologists that supported the claim that the universe is finite and not eternal.  Prominent cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin said,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”³

If Dr. Krauss is implying that the quantum vacuum has always been in existence and subsequently popped out a universe, there is evidence to show that the universe had a beginning and is not the product of an eternal quantum vacuum.  As Christians, we hold that the universe was created ex nihilo, which means that God created the universe without a material cause.  However, I’d like to clarify that the universe didn’t come into being by nothing because God is the cause for all matter and energy².

In conclusion, it seems that “nothing” has replaced “something” in Dr. Krauss’ dictionary. However, the reality is that “nothing” means “not anything”.  Since the quantum vacuum is something, it doesn’t meet the definition of “nothing”.  Therefore, I feel it is important to reiterate the significance terminology holds in the grand scheme of things because it ultimately affects the meaning of what is being communicated. What Dr. Krauss is doing is simply irresponsible scholastics and Christians should be prepared to give an intelligible response to the new “nothing”. 

Notes

1 William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate (March 30, 2011 at North Carolina State University)

2 William Lane Craig, Must the Universe have a Material Cause? (Reasonablfaith.com)

3 Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill & Wang, 2006), p. 176.

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

This is one of the primary arguments for atheists against theism, and rightfully so may I add.  I have seen loved ones go through suffering and the thought of “why would God permit this?” inevitably creeps into your mind.  Particularly when you see someone who you love go through tremendous amounts of pain and suffering for seemingly no justified reason.  When you personally see someone who you love suffer, it fills your heart with doubt and tackles your emotions forcefully.  This emotional problem of suffering also creeps in when you see how many underserved deaths due to free moral agents (terrorist attacks, car bombs, genocide, etc…) or natural evil (cancer, hurricanes, tornados, etc…) of people who you’ve never met before.  We see these types of events on television frequently and it grieves us to think that God would allow these types of sufferings to occur under His discretion.

 I, admittedly, have overcome this obstacle and feel that it was the biggest one to conquer in my Christianity.  It was only when I looked into the issues of suffering from the eyes of God would I find peace in the fact that suffering and God are not incompatible in any light.  I know that statement requires justification, and I am prepared to give that justification with a clear conscious and while fully trusting the Lord.

In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig suggests that “God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in this world”.   As Christians, how do we justify a statement that would allow God to permit suffering and evil as long as they are morally sufficient?  Let’s start by identifying the two problems of suffering. There is the intellectual problem and the emotional problem of suffering. The intellectual problem of suffering addresses the plausibility of God and suffering coexisting at the same time and the emotional problem of suffering is when people dislike the prospect of a God permitting suffering ¹.  Of these two, the intellectual problem addresses the reality of the issue while the emotional problem results in a rejection of faith rather than a refutation of the faith ¹.

 Atheists/skeptics would argue that if He did exist and He permitted the suffering/evil, He obviously prefers a world with suffering/evil within it and therefore He is evil or perverse.  However, if God exists, we would be extremely miniscule and not have the capacity to grasp an omniscient mind such as the one God has.  We are not capable of foreseeing the long-term benefits of the current suffering in this world.  For example, taking our child to the doctor when he/she is convinced we’re torturing him/her; however, as parents, know it is for the greater good.  On a much grander scale, God can be arranging the pieces of life in a manner that allows for the greatest amount of people to engage in a relationship with Him while justifiably allowing the evil/suffering ¹. 

 Our human limitations are drastically impotent in foreseeing the greatest good of suffering.  Some people claim that it is improbable that God lacks a good reason for allowing the suffering in this world; however who are we to say what is and is not improbable?  We are finite beings that live in very limited space and time.  God, being the greatest possible being, is omniscient of all events of past, present, and future.  We cannot make an accurate claim to know what God has in store for humanity throughout times of suffering.  As finite beings, we are extremely limited within the framework of history ¹.

 If you look back to the moral argument (refer to post on 5/31/12), the simple identifying of objective moral values would indicate that there is a God.  Since we are able to identify objective morality and sense that evil and suffering are objectively bad, we must acknowledge that we cannot allow our emotions to take ahold of our intellect and convince us that there isn’t a God or that He is evil because He allows suffering/evil.  Based upon our past observations of Jesus, we see that God loved us enough to send His son Jesus Christ to die for our sins! 

 While I acknowledged my own struggles with this particular issue myself, I found that God understands my best interests better than I do due to His omniscient nature.  In addition, this line of reasoning falls in line with the overwhelming amount of other evidence in favor of there being a God.  The full scope of evidence leads me to believe that God isn’t a God of malice of ill-intent.  He is a personal God that we can experience and rely upon.  When we do, we find that God can have a significant personal impact in our lives.

Notes

 1 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 4

The Euthyphro Dilemma

In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig describes the basic structure of the Euthyphro Dilemma and why it serves as an attempted objection against the moral argument.  This objection is found in Plato’s first dialogue named Euthyphro.  His objection is laid out as follows:

“Either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good” ¹

Let’s dissect each half of that statement to get a better understanding of what is truly being objected to within the moral argument.

The first half states that, “something is good because God wills it”.  That means that God could have willed anything to be good.  God could have potentially willed rape, murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… to be good.  If those horrible actions were to be willed good by God, then we would be obligated to do those things to one another by Him.  What is good becomes arbitrary under this option.  Therefore, the first half of this dilemma clearly seems to be an implausible assertion because the possibility of murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… being good just because God wills it undermines the fact that some moral values are necessary in this world ¹. 

The second half states that, “God wills something because it is good”.  That means that whatever is good is completely independent of God and would completely undercut the first premise of the moral argument (If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist).  If we contend that the first premise of the moral argument is true, we see that objective moral values are dependent upon God for their moral grounding.  Therefore, God does not will something because it is good ¹.    

Since the moment I heard the Euthyphro Dilemma, I’ve always questioned why this dilemma has become the authority on the moral argument for the atheist.  Are there any other options outside of the two that are presented within the dilemma?  It appears that this dilemma isn’t providing us with all the options for the origin of moral grounding.  It seems that Plato failed to acknowledge the option of God making our moral foundations good because He is good!  They are reflective on His nature.  So, if an atheist states, “If God commanded rape, we would be obligated to do so”, the atheist is presupposing that God could command such an atrocity.  God couldn’t command rape because it is against His nature ².  Stating otherwise would be as non-nonsensical as identifying red as blue, a square as a triangle, and the moon as the sun. 

In conclusion, God’s nature is the foundation for the morality in this universe.  If humanity acts immorally, it’s because they’re acting contradictory to God’s nature and not because God willed it.  Those who present the possibility of God willing unspeakable actions are simply confused by how morality is bound by God’s nature. If God’s nature is the basis for all moral foundations, then it would logically fall into place that morality would be determined upon that nature.  Since God is the greatest possible being, it would be illogical to assert that God would impose rape simply because He wills it.  God couldn’t will something against His own nature.  In essence, we recognize morality today because God is good and we are made in His image, which gives us a key to acknowledging such goodness in this world.

Notes

1 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books) Chapter 4

2 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 6