Micah Ministries

The argument from Divine Hiddenness (DH) is a well-used argument against God for various reasons:   1.      It has immediate first-person subjective appearance, sceptics and Christians alike haven’t felt God’s presence – the bible is replete with calls of instances where God appears far away. 2.      We earnestly pray or seek God, yet He may seem distant. 3.      Believers may forget the times He has revealed Himself to us, yet we still wonder if He is real.   The argument or the concept of hiddenness has been in circulation for thousands of years and as I’ve mentioned briefly is a theme in the bible itself. However, in recent years the argument has been made popular and given substantial philosophical rigor by John L. Schellenberg.   His argument goes something like this:   1.      If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open ...

The Trinity as The Perfect Model of Love A fairly common objection to Christian theism is the coherence of the Trinity, and why only three beings are necessary, rather than almost any other number. Here are some of my thoughts regarding this. Unity and Diversity in Love: The Trinity provides the perfect balance of unity and diversity. Within the Godhead: The Father loves the Son and the Spirit. The Son loves the Father and the Spirit. The Spirit loves the Father and the Son. This creates a dynamic relationship of self-giving love that is eternal and unchanging. Unlike a monotheistic God without relational distinctions, the Trinity inherently demonstrates love that is not self-centered or dependent on creation. A Love That Is Complete: A mono God (a single person) might theoretically possess the capacity to love but would lack an eternal "other" to love prior to creation. This makes love contingent on creation, which could undermine God’s aseity and independence. The Trinity,...

  Moral Dilemma for Naturalism In a previous posts here and here , I showed that God is the best ground for moral imperatives and I give some framework of what I believe is our moral imperatives.  In this post, I will attempt to firm up my claim theism is the best explanation and in particularly why naturalism fails. Discussion.  Typically the Euthyphro Dilemma is a key argument against theists claim to moral truths, the objection goes: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? Essentially creating two horns of a dilemma.  The first Horn: Is it good because God commands it? This essentially makes moral facts arbitrary to God, meaning it could be that if God changed what he commands what is good, we could be commanded to murder and it would be good. The second Horn: Does God command it because it's good? Meaning God is describing some other necessary moral fact outside of Himself. The point being, both options are unpalata...

Overview  In a previous post, I showed why the A theory of time is the better explanation of our lived experience and why the B theory leads to absurdities.   Here I wish to elaborate on my previous work, further exposing why B theory is incoherent, in particularly in reference to implications to leading to determinism and it's relation to God. While perdurance seems to offer some genuine change on their view. However, on closer analysis it amounts to the same issues of arbitraryness of distinction of parts. For instance,  4D worms becoming structured in such a way to be 'carwise' or 'catwise', but this becoming is tenseless and if the proponent of B theory are acting genuinely consistently, they have to accept the real possibility, these 4D blocks exist equally real in all directions, extending possibly infinitely into the future.  Terms expanded Perdurance theory holds that, within the 4D block universe of B theory, objects are composed of temporal parts. For ...