William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins

Craig and Dawkins square off on stage later today! Yesterday I received this Facebook note from William Lane Craig. Since he sent this to all his "friends," I'm assuming it's public information. In case you're unaware, a debate between Dawkins and Craig would match up the world's most well known apologists for their respective worldviews: Dawkins for Atheism and Craig for Christianity. It's also worth noting that Dawkins has colorfully dismissed any future debate potential with WLC, which makes this so surprising.

Dr. Craig describes their first meeting...

I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de
las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US.
It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists,
scientists, etc.

As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the
question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just
found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins!
It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my
hand and introduced myself and said, Ï´m surspised to see that you´re on the
panel.

He replied, "And why not?"

I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."

His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with
you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he
turned away.

¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.

"I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.

So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning,
should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get
back.

The six-man debate panel is set to discuss the question, "Does the Universe have a Purpose?"



Affirmative Position: Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett
Negative Position: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins



The organization's website has lots of videos posted so I'm hoping they will have this one up soon. I'll post it as soon as it becomes available.

UPDATE 11/14/2010: The video has been uploaded here on YouTube.

A Former Homosexual Testifies to God's Transforming Power

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." - 2 Corinthians 5:17

A Muslim Cries Out To Jesus

Powerful testimony from a former Muslim:

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." - Matthew 5:44

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." - Ephesians 6:12

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

The Good-O-Meter

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 - Ephesians 2:8-9 -

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us so richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 - Titus 3:5-7 -

The Problem of Unfair Damnation

Jim Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com tackles the question of hell and the destiny of the unevangelized:



Check out Jim Wallace's website PleaseConvinceMe.com and his you tube channel for more great videos.

One Way by Apologetix

What is Apologetix? Picture this: Weird Al Yankovic meets William Lane Craig.

Well...maybe not exactly.

Apologetix is a Christian parody band with a special interest in...you guessed it...apologetics! Some good, wholesome, entertaining music so you'll "always be ready to make a song defense."

Check out their website here.

The song below is titled One Way and is a parody of the song One Week by Barenaked Ladies:



Check out another Apologetix video here: Smooth Grandmama (a parody of Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson).

Featured Website: The One Minute Apologist

We live in a culture in which many individuals are used to getting their information in thirty-second soundbites. Christians often find themselves in situations where a ten-second window is all they have to offer a response or communicate a timely truth. It behooves apologists to learn to effectively respond to questions and challenges with short and succinct, informed and effective answers. The One Minute Apologist is a website dedicated to offering just this type of answer.

The vision of One Minute Apologist is simple...

To provide short, creative informational videos on YouTube that resource people with a hunger to defend their faith for the sake of mankind and the glory of God.

The One Minute Apologist was designed to create quick answers to curious questions. We dream of a website that is fully loaded with great articles, books, documentaries, lectures and debates in the areas of Christian  apologetics and philosophy.

We believe more than ever before there is a great urgency for Christians to exercise their minds for the glory of God. When we study apologetics it is one way we love those who don't know Jesus in a personal way. We love them by privately saturating our minds with God's truth so that we are ready to give a thoughtful Christian answer when asked.

The One Minute Apologist includes interviews with William Lane Craig, William Dembski, Greg Koukl, Mike Licona, Frank Turek, Ken Boa, and more!

Be sure to check out The One Minute Apologist for great video resources, interviews, and thoughtful answers to tough questions.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (2 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 2 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (1 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 1 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

Atheists' Non-belief

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Greg Koukl responds to the following letter he received on the topic of atheism:

I've grown frustrated with Atheists saying to me that they don’t have to give any arguments or evidence to support their view, because they are not making any claims. They have a "non-belief". One atheist told me he is not required to provide evidence that there are no fairies living under his house either. This seems so cheap, so lame, yet I'm not sure how to make that obvious to them. What do you suggest?

Here is Greg's video response:

An Objectively Good Night

Success!!! Despite a few hiccups in pre-event planning, last night's McDowell-Corbett debate went incredibly well. Saddleback College was buzzing with students, families, scholars, and local citizens lucky enough to get a seat in an event that sold out weeks in advance over a period of about 10 days. Sadly, we had to turn away over three times the number as our room could hold but the webcast was viewed by over a 1,000 people from around the globe. In fact, Conversant Life told me that so many people logged in at one time that the server crashed three times (sorry about that livestream viewers). I would be remiss not to thank Karla Westphal (Saddleback College Freethinkers Club faculty advisor) for hosting the event and handling lots of logistics. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else in her role.

Both speakers were articulate and dynamic which kept the audience captivated the entire 95 minutes without a break. Craig Hazen set the tone with his trademark wit and cordial demeanor. I witnessed first hand his unbroken contact with the timekeeper and even-handed treatment of speaker time limits. The only exception was when he granted Corbett an additional response in the Q&A portion. He even kept the course on track to about three minutes of our planned end time. Amazing work, Dr. Hazen! My only fear is the backlash I'm going to get from all those unable to attend now that Craig and Sean gave away free books and DVDs to everyone there (again, sorry webcasters).

Sean spoke first, as is customary of the positive debate position, and set the bar high for his opponent. Sean layed out his case in outline form stating two key contentions to frame the debate. 1) If God does not exist, we have no solid foundation for moral values, and 2) If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for moral values. Sean carefully made the distinction between subjective and objective with Greg Koukl's famous ice cream illustration. He told the story of a terrible teen gang rape to show what it means for something to be objectively wrong. Sean argued that any ethical system must account for three things: 1) Transcendence, 2) Free will, and 3) Human value. Concluding that God makes the most sense of moral values, Sean then challenged Dr. Corbett to offer a better explanation.

5 Reasons God Exists

(Reasons.org)

Kenneth Samples discusses the following 5 reasons for God's existence:

1. God uniquely accounts for the physical universe's beginning.
2. God uniquely accounts for the order, complexity, and design evident in the universe.
3. God uniquely accounts for the reality of objective ethical values.
4. God uniquely accounts for the enigma of man.
5. God uniquely accounts for the claims, character, and credentials of Jesus Christ.

The Failure of Scientism

Science is good, but science isn't everything. Taken to an abnormal and irrational extreme it may be properly labeled "scientism." This is the view that "science is the only paradigm of truth and rationality...Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible."(1) In other words, you can't know something unless you can prove it scientifically.

In a 1998 debate, William Lane Craig faced off against Peter Atkins on the question "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?" During the debate, Peter Atkins made the claim that science can account for everything and is "omnipotent." When questioned by Atkins regarding what science can't account for, Craig lists the following five examples of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we are all rational to accept:

1. Logical and mathematical truths
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself

Watch the clip here:



If you enjoyed this short clip, download the entire debate:

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!
______________________________________________

1. See Love Your God With All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland, pg. 144.

Who's Waiting For Our Kids?

Questions to ponder...

1. Why does study after study show that our youth are abandoning the faith and leaving the church in massive droves?
2. Why do so few believers know what they believe and why they believe it?
3. How is it even possible for Christians to sit in the pews of their church for years and still emerge knowing nothing substantial about their faith?
4. Why is it that many so-called "leaders" within the church cannot even clearly articulate what they believe?
5. Why do Christian students have to spend thousands of dollars to attend seminary for training they should be receiving in the local church?

Is it possible we aren't doing our job?



In a culture where Christians are constantly bombarded with the secular philosophies of postmodernism, moral relativism, and religious pluralism, knowing what you believe and why you believe it is as important as ever. Despite how many within the church feel, we live in a time in which clear-thinking, sound theology, and a robust defense of the faith is crucial for the survival of our faith.

Given the state of our culture and the Church, is it any wonder we are losing our kids? Something has to be done, or as Josh McDowell has stated, this may be the last Christian generation.

What do you think?

Video used by permission from Brett Kunkle

10 Arguments Thoughtful Atheists Won't Use

"Through countless discussions surrounding atheism, it has become apparent that someone must be feeding bad advice to atheists. Since the following errors are made repeatedly, this partial list has been populated to warn atheists of this underground movement in order for them to avoid these pitfalls. If you are an atheist and hear any of the following advice, realize that if used, it will be harmful to your cause." - Doug Eaton



Doug Eaton and the Apologetics.com staff dedicated an entire show to this issue.

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!

I Believe - A 9/11 Tribute

A tribute to all those who lost their lives and loved ones on September 11, 2001.

It is hard to believe it has already been 8 years since this tragedy.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.
(Rev. 21:1-4)

Capitalism and the Free Market

Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue - 1979

It seems things have not changed much. The same economic fallacies and misunderstandings articulated here by Donahue are repeated time and time again by democrats and liberals today.

Free Will and Calvinism

In honor of the 500th year anniversary of John Calvin's birthday this last week I thought it would be appropriate to examine Calvinism and some related topics more in depth.

The reason for this is twofold:

First, John Calvin has been one of the most influential theologians in the history of the Christian church. This alone makes his life and teachings worthy of study.

Second, there are far too many critics of Calvinism who really know nothing about Calvinism itself. While there are brilliant people on both sides of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, it seems to me that if you are going to disagree with Calvin you first need to know what Calvin taught and believed. I have run across far too many dissenters of Calvin who cannot accurately describe what they are dissenting from. They end up attacking a straw man, a "John Calvin" who never really existed. This is unfortunate.

We begin then with the topic of free will and Calvinism. Free will is certainly a complicated topic, not as simple as some would make it seem, or even like it to be. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason does an excellent job of explaining the topic of free will from a Calvinist perspective. Regardless of whether you agree with Greg or not, everyone can profit from his insights and the logic of his position.

Free Will and Calvinism: Part 1 of 3



Free Will and Calvinism: Part 2 of 3



Free Will and Calvinism: Part 3 of 3

Is Jesus the Only Way?

Is Jesus Christ the only way to salvation? Compare and contrast how Joel Osteen and Greg Koukl answer this question. Then ask yourself, "Which is more biblical?"

Joel Osteen:



Greg Koukl:



Why Only One Way?

Why is there only one way to God? Simple: there is only one God. And there is only one human race. And there is only one problem between God and man: sin. And there is only one mediator between God and man who takes care of our sin problem: the God-man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Asking why Jesus is the only way to God is sort of like asking why a diabetic needs insulin. Diabetics need insulin because diabetes is a very specific problem with a very specific cure. If a diabetic were to say, "But I don't want to take insulin for my diabetes. I want to take chocolate syrup," we may rightly respond, "But chocolate syrup isn't going to take care of your diabetic problem."

In like manner, mankind suffers from a very specific disease: sin. And this disease has a very specific cure: Jesus Christ. Neither Buddha, nor Muhammad, nor any other religious figure takes care of the sin problem. Saying you prefer Buddha or Muhammad to Jesus in the realm of religion is like saying you prefer chocolate syrup to insulin as a cure for diabetes. Neither Buddha nor Muhammad suffered the wrath of God and solved the sin problem by paying the sin debt.

What About Sincerity?

But doesn't sincerity count for anything? No, it doesn't. Sincerity doesn't count any more in religion than it does in politics, economics, math, or science. You can sincerely believe something and at the same time be sincerely wrong. What matters is whether or not your beliefs correspond with reality. Sincerely believing you have a million dollars in your bank account or that 2+2=5 in no way alters the reality of the situation. And sincerely believing in a false religious system can no more save you than sincerely believing that chocolate syrup can save you from diabetes. Truth in religion matters.

Isn't This Narrow-Minded?

But isn't this narrow-minded? No, it's not. Narrow-mindedness has more to do with how a person believes than what a person believes. Let me explain. If I were to shut my mind off to all alternative options, refuse to listen to anyone else, and exercise blind faith in what I believe, than perhaps I may be accused of narrow-mindedness. But there is a difference between being narrow-minded and being narrow. All truth, by definition, is narrow. All truth claims exclude opposing and contradictory views. Even the statement "Truth is not narrow" excludes the statement "Truth is narrow."

In fact, isn't this exactly what Jesus said? In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus states, "Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Imagine someone calling me narrow-minded because I make the claim that diabetics need insulin. Of course, this is narrow, but not narrow-minded. Likewise, saying "Jesus is the only way" is in fact narrow, but not narrow-minded. Calling people "narrow-minded" is easy. Name-calling is always easier than intellectual engagement. But rejecting the message of Jesus because it is narrow is just as silly as rejecting the narrow message of insulin for your diabetes.

What Did Jesus Say?

Most importantly, Jesus Himself claimed to be the only way in John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me." This message is consistently taught and repeated throughout the rest of the New Testament (Luke 10:16, 12:8-9; John 3:18, 3:36, 5:23b, 6:28-29, 8:24, 10:7-8b; Acts 4:12, 16:30-31; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:23, 5:11-12). The apostles certainly were not afraid to speak the truth of this message as it seems Joel Osteen is in the above video. We have to realize that the gospel is offensive (1 Peter 2:8). This doesn't mean we present the truth in an obnoxious matter. But it does mean that the message of the gospel is inherently offensive to the self-righteous, prideful, and depraved mind of unregenerate mankind.

Christians who repeat this message aren't making it up out of thin air because they want to be annoying, prideful, or arrogant. They are simply being faithful to the teachings of their Lord. Therefore, when people object or become contentious with the idea that "Jesus is the only way," it is not Christians they have a problem with but Jesus Himself.

Keyes vs. Obama: Death Penalty and Abortion

Unfortunately, Keyes did not get a chance to respond to Obama's last statement but I would like to make a few observations.

Obama attempts to differentiate between the slaveholder and the pregnant woman "exercising her right to choose" by saying that the woman is making her choice "in extraordinarily painful circumstances." He attempts to dismiss Keyes' comments as mere rhetoric. This reply is weak and mistaken for several reasons:

First, Obama never addresses the argument. The analogy by Keyes is plain and provocative. Both the slaveholder and the pro-abortion choice advocate discriminate based on a morally irrelevant factor: level of development. Obama never addresses this but simply attempts to dismiss it as "rhetoric."

Second, Obama resorts to rhetoric himself. He characterizes abortion as a woman's "right to choose." Of course the question is, "choose what?" If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, no one should have this "right." Obama does not address the only important question of the debate: what is the unborn? In refusing to address this, Obama must resort to euphemisms such as "right to choose" which, ironically, amounts to empty rhetoric in the absence of reason.

Third, Obama begs the question by assuming the unborn is not a human being. Imagine you lived back when slavery was under debate in this country. What if someone were to say, "Yes, but you don't understand. Slaveholders are exercising their right to choose slavery in extraordinarly painful circumstances. Times are tough. Slaveholders have families to feed and businesses to run. If you don't like slavery, then don't own a slave. But don't force your morality on others."* In point of fact, this was the exact logic used by some pro-slavery advocates. But notice all of this assumes slaves are not persons and instead are property, which is exactly what Obama is doing in the case of the unborn. He is assuming that which he must prove. He is begging the question.
____________________________________________

* As a side note, this line of reasoning also commits the relativist fallacy. It treats an objective truth claim as if it were a relative or subjective preference claim. In other words, when a person says that abortion or slavery is immoral, they are making an objective truth claim. They are not making a subjective preference claim such as "I don't like abortion or slavery." To treat an objective truth claim as if it were a subjective preference claim is to commit the relativist fallacy, which is what both the slaveholder and Obama do. This is why the bumper sticker "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" completely misses the point.