Module review

Begin with a clarifying question, such as 'What do you mean by evidence?' and 'How did you come to that view?' Then show gently that everyone has a worldview: beliefs about what is real, how we know and how to live, and his are simply unspoken. The claim that science is the only reliable way to know anything cannot itself be tested by science, so scientism refutes itself. If he also believes nature is all there is, that is a positive claim with its own burden of proof (the 'lack of belief' move goes back to Flew). Press the borrowed capital: on naturalism, why trust a mind produced by unguided survival processes, why is anything really wrong, and what ultimate meaning is there? He reasons and acts morally, but his worldview cannot account for it, because these only make sense in God's world (Romans 1:18-21). Close by saying that the God who makes reason possible has made himself known in Jesus, and invite him to investigate Christ.

• Uses clarifying questions before arguing
• Shows scientism is self-refuting and naturalism is a positive claim
• Makes a borrowed-capital point about reason, morality or meaning (Romans 1:18-21)
• Distinguishes 'cannot reason' from 'cannot account for reason'
• Ends by pointing to Christ with gentleness and respect

Start by saying the real divide is not science against faith but a world with a Creator against a world without one; science grew in Christian soil, and God is the author of the laws science studies, not a gap-filler. On the age of the earth, Bible-believing Christians differ: young-earth teachers such as John MacArthur, Ken Ham and Jeff Durbin read six ordinary days, while others hold old-earth views such as the day-age or framework view, and the confessions' 'space of six days' is debated. That is an in-house debate, and neither side should be treated as compromised. But some things are not open: God created everything from nothing, and he specially created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam as real people in his image. Human descent from earlier hominids sits in tension with Genesis 2:7 and with Romans 5:12-19, where sin enters through one man and grace comes through one man, Jesus; confessional Reformed churches reject it. Distinguish the senses of evolution: change over time is uncontroversial, but unguided evolution as a total explanation is a philosophical claim. So she does not have to choose between science and the Bible, but she should keep the main question in view: who made us, and what has he done to rescue us?

• Real divide is Creator vs no Creator, not science vs faith
• Age of the earth presented as in-house, naming young- and old-earth views fairly
• Special creation of Adam and Eve and no human common descent, with Genesis 2:7 and Romans 5:12-19
• Distinguishes senses of evolution
• Gospel-pointing close

For (a), agree that atheists can know and do good, because God's law is written on every heart (Romans 2:14-15). The question is not epistemology (how we know right from wrong) but ontology (what makes anything right at all). Craig's moral argument puts it simply: if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist; they do exist; so God exists. Evolution may explain moral feelings, but it cannot make anything obligatory. For (b), the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma: God commands what is good because he himself is good, so goodness is rooted in his unchanging nature (Psalm 100:5; James 1:17), neither arbitrary nor above him. Both answers locate the moral standard in God himself. That leads to the gospel: if God is the standard, we all fall short (Romans 3:23), and Christ bore our guilt so that we can be forgiven.

• Affirms atheists can know and do good (Romans 2:14-15)
• Epistemology vs ontology clearly distinguished
• States the moral argument accurately
• Answers Euthyphro by grounding goodness in God's nature
• Moves from moral guilt to Christ and the cross

Mythicism is a fringe view among historians; even Bart Ehrman, an agnostic critic of Christianity, wrote Did Jesus Exist? to argue that Jesus certainly existed. Hostile non-Christian sources mention him: Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (about AD 116), says Christus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate in Tiberius's reign; Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1, refers to 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James'; and Pliny, Letters 10.96 (about AD 112), describes Christians singing a hymn to Christ 'as to a god'. Be honest that the longer Josephus passage (18.3.3) contains Christian additions, though most scholars accept an authentic core. The Gospels are ancient biographies (Burridge), written within decades and full of checkable detail. The Horus claims fall apart against the sources: Isis conceives Horus after reassembling Osiris, there are no twelve disciples, no crucifixion and no resurrection, and 25 December is not in the Gospels. Ask for the ancient source for each parallel. Close with a question such as, 'If Jesus really lived, what do you make of what he claimed about himself?'

• Cites scholarly consensus, including sceptics such as Ehrman
• At least two extra-biblical sources with correct references
• Honest about the Testimonium Flavianum
• Specific, accurate correction of the Horus claim
• Gracious tone with an inviting question