Category Archives: Apologetics

Is there any unbiased evidence for Jesus?

If a bias is a point of view, then everyone with a point of view on something is biased. The question is contradictory.

In a court of law, eyewitnesses offer stronger testimony than non-eyewitnesses.  Therefore, the biblical writers offer the best evidence for Jesus.  “But they were very biased; they can’t be trusted!”  The amount of bias is a consideration but not solely.  Should the eyewitness testimony of Jewish holocaust survivors be rejected because they were very biased?  Some Nazi’s and Muslim would say yes, but is that not due to their even greater bias?  If one is going to reject all bias, if held consistently, they’d have to reject everyone’s testimony, their own testimony, and their own position.

So science says something comes from nothing, really?

For some reason Christians keep telling me this, but the irony is, that is the exact opposite of what science says.

Science explains in intricate detail how any given thing was created by natural processes from something else.

Take the elements for example, where did they come from? Did they pop into existence from nothing, like it says in the Bible? No, they came from the countless billions of furnaces twinkling in the sky.

To begin with, a star only contains hydrogen, but the gravity of all that hydrogen in one place causes it to fuse together into helium. But then of cause you have a load of helium all in one place and the process repeats, creating carbon. This continues creating more and more complex elements.

So what happens if you go back even further than stars and elements?

One of the fundamental cornerstones of modern physics is the relationship between matter and energy.

Energy is behind everything, it comes in all shapes and sizes and physicists are discovering new forms all the time. But science also tells us something very important about energy. It is the one thing that cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, the big bang created the universe as we know it, but the energy that created it was already there. It has always been there, always changing, one universe collapses, then explodes, creating another.


But science also tells us something very important about energy. It is the one thing that cannot be created or destroyed.
Scientist can observe that energy is remaining constant: it only changes form. But it’s a leep in logic and evidence to claim it was never created.
I’ve only put a little search in it, but so far I’ve come up with Herman von Helmholtz (1821-1894) being the author of the wording of the first law of thermodynamics.   He is said to have pursued naturalistic explanations of human sensation and action.  If he (or whoever wrote the law) was a naturalist, he may have held to an infinite universe.  In an infinite universe, the current phrasing of the first law makes sense.  But now that science has determined the universe had a beginning, it seems contradictory with current cosmology.

Aren’t all religions wrong?

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., say their doctrines are correct and others are at least somewhat wrong if not completely wrong.  So isn’t this proof that all religions are wrong?


So if all Native Americans are found guilty by a certain judge, that judge can then assume all future Native American defendants are guilty?  Each person deserves a fair hearing and it is discriminatory to determine guilt by association.  Each religion deserves a faith hearing as well and it is just as discriminatory to conclude error without carefully evaluating the evidence. 

In addition, associations can be faulty.  Perhaps one defendant who was innocent was declared guilty.  This could happen when a judge assumes the truth instead of carefully determining the truth.  Perhaps Christianity has been assumed to be false from the outset and therefore all evidence then conforms to the guilty verdict.