While the propensity to dictate to God the conditions of divine-human relationship is pervasive, it is hardly rational. The religious pluralist’s insistence that God cannot have arranged for our salvation in the exclusivist way of Christianity presupposes a greater knowledge of God than radical religious pluralists are in a position to have on their own assumptions.
— Douglas Geivett, from Jesus Under Fire, by J. P. Moreland, p. 199
The Christian revelation claim—with its diagnosis and proposed remedy for the human condition, together with its historically well-attested account of the resurrection of Jesus—is God’s own revelation of himself in response to the human condition.
— Douglas Geivett, from In Defense of Miracles, p. 194
If we desire to have religious beliefs that are true, then we must be careful about how we arrive at those religious beliefs. If we prefer to have theological reality rather than some religious placebo, we need to consider the manner in which we conduct our investigation. And the first order of business is to be clear about our starting-point and the logical progression of our inquiry. Therefore, … we must first consider what concept of God it is most reasonable for us to hold.
— Douglas Geivett, from Jesus Under Fire, by J. P. Moreland, p. 181
The way to think about the pattern of natural theology is not in terms of “proof” for the existence of God but in terms of inference to the reality of God as the best explanation of a wide and diverse range of phenomena, including the origin of the universe, the innumerable instances of design in the universe, the presence of finite persons in the universe and their spiritual nature, the human capacity for language and self-determination, and so on.
— Douglas Geivett, from Jesus Under Fire, by J. P. Moreland, p. 188