In the podcast below, RC Sproul addresses first cause. Atheists often use the infinite regress problem in an attempt to argue against God as the first cause. Simply, they ask the question that children often ask, “Who made God?” Sproul presents an effective refutation of the infinite regress problem and discusses how the law of causality relates to the existence of God.
There is perhaps no other fact more important to the Christian faith than the resurrection of Christ. Indeed, Paul writes, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14).
This is a topic that has been given a thorough treatment by theologians and apologists. Ashby Camp has written a concise point by point treatise on the matter, The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Christ. If you have not read other similar works, this paper is concise and thorough. I recommend it.
In a previous comment I wrote:
If God has no love, but is powerful, I’m not interested. If He has love, but no power, that interesting, but of little significance (he’s a cosmic puppy dog–dyslexia?). If He has no goodness but interest in humans, he’s a powerful and cruel dictator. If He is not just, but has power and interest, there can be no Justice under his creation. If he has love, power, knowledge, justice, and interest in human beings, you would expect expect this to be revealed to those in whom he expresses interest. This is a foundational argument for pointing to the Christian God, who is described as having all these characteristics.
I’m not trying to directly tie this into ID, creationism, or naturalistic evolution at this time, but I do think there could be implications for each perspective. I have a hard time with the orthogonality position relating to the realms of science and theology. And believe it or not, I actually think Dawkins is correct in his theological extensions of naturalism to atheism (although tied back in with my arguments above), and that furthermore, if you are a pure naturalist [philosophically] it follows that believers are delusional (as he [Dawkins] is so fond of saying). I don’t think evolution entails atheism, but I do think naturalism [philosophical] does. Of course you could probably split hairs all day long on different definitions of naturalism.
I just thought this was worthy of a post in its own right.