When Muslims (or others) demand an answer to a question like this it's usually treated like a 'grenade' that Christians cannot handle (and sometimes they're right). It's usually because they heard it in the mosque, or from their friends, or from a video, or even just by googling something like "Questions that Christians can't answer." Seldom do they ask the question sincerely and thoughtfully because they really want to understand the subject (but not never). Rarely do they know the context of a "gotcha" verse or have the patience for it. But the Christian must assert it and demand their hearing of it! And sometimes if they will not hear it then they should also hear bluntly, "If you won't consider the whole passage, then you don't deserve any answer. You only want to trap me, and I don't have time for that" (or something to that effect.) It's a skill. But some may be willing to hear the fuller passage, and then you should take advantage of that. Either way, you and I need to think through the question intelligently and get our minds around it. It's a real question based on a real verse in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows [εἴδω], not even the 

angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (ESV) 

In the 19th century intellectuals arose from a tradition called The Frankfurt School such as Max Horkheimer. He was a Marxist who believed in utilizing a multidisciplinary approach to reaching the Marxist goal. He published an essay called ‘Traditional and Critical Theory’, his most famous work in 1937. From Horkheimer and his collaborators came Critical Theory. Which took the oppressor and oppressed identity for humanity and expanded to be more inclusive of other marginalized groups. From this, we have what is called Cultural Marxism.

I am a black American who grew up in a Christian household until I came out as an atheist during high school. I thought the Bible was fictional storytelling with no value to my life or morals. How could this book be in agreement with human rationality? I thought “The world would be better off without religion.” ...Around 2016 I discovered what I viewed as the genius of an economic philosopher named Karl Marx. ... But now I have broken free from the grip of Marxism, and others can do the same.

Deante is a graduate of UM-Dearborn in Media Studies, and now an Assistant Chapter Director for Ratio Christi there. 

*John is a pre-med senior at UM-Dearborn (Biology). He has also been the student President of Ratio Christi all four years, as well as a co-founder and Vice President of Faith & Reason in his final year.

In discussing design arguments, Richard Swinburne differentiates between two different variants in this family of arguments. The first variant he describes as arguments from spatial copresence (Swinburne, 1968). These arguments intend to infer the existence of a deity from some observed physical arrangement in the world (that can be recognized at one moment in time) that would be improbable to have occurred naturally. Darwinian evolution has become a formidable barrier to this form of argumentation, so Swinburne presents an alternate form that avoids this objection altogether. I will argue that his route of argumentation is the best way to avoid the implications of Darwinian evolution.

Now that Ramadan is over, it is time to reply again to Ozair's comments to my first piece on this subject from April 14th, two posts down. In that I accused Ozair of changing the subject, all the while accusing Ted of trying to. Again, for their debate Ozair insisted on the topic—it could only be the trinity, nothing else. But Ozair does not even understand it himself, which is apparently why he changed it to the incarnation of God. The doctrine of the trinity is really that simple—There is one God who has one Essence with three persons. Period. It entails nothing necessarily about the nature of the man that was Jesus. Again, the way that the debate question was framed excludes any discussion about incarnation, so it does not concern the Arians, the Apollonians, or the Nestorians whose heresies were unrelated to the trinity. The matter of the trinity is confined to questions about Yahweh's nature, his plural-unity, not Jesus. (Also, since Allah has plural attributes in what sense is he 'absolute one' in the Islamic sense?) See Appendix 1 of my book, The Reason of Reason. 

Francis Schaeffer provides an eloquent discussion of divine plurality-within-unity in his excellent book, He is There And He Is Not Silent, although he uses the word “diversity” instead of plurality. Here I want to offer a summary of his thinking on this subject starting with an overview of this short book should you like to read it (only 80 pages plus appendices). I highly recommend it. The main argument we are concerned with is Schaeffer’s conviction that only the existence of a tri-personal God, i.e. the trinity, can make sense of both diversity and unity in reality. This is also my conviction for which I will offer my own commentary. But allow me to come back to this specific point in the fifth paragraph after a bit more overview of the whole book should you like to read it. Or you can skim down.