Polkinghorne embarks to dismantle the concept that science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of life. He says the main problems with this opinion arise from both a misunderstanding of the nature of science and the nature of religion. He explores these two misconceived presuppositions and shows the error that arises when dogmatically sticking to either one of them. It's always great to listen to Polkinghorne as the expertise he's gathered over his career really shines through in his talks. Couple this with a hot topic and a large Q&A session and this talk is more than worth it.
Alister McGrath is the Professor of Theology, Ministry and Education, and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College, London. McGrath has written numerous books including "Christian Theology: An Introduction" and "The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine". Richard Dawkins was previously the Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. Dawkins is the founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and is the author of the bestseller "The God Delusion".
It seems to be that the main talk in this debate/discussion ends up being the question of why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God seemingly act in some situations and not in others? The discussion between the two on this question actually reaches a point of no return where they are forced to disagree and move along. Worth a look, check it out.
It seems to be that the main talk in this debate/discussion ends up being the question of why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God seemingly act in some situations and not in others? The discussion between the two on this question actually reaches a point of no return where they are forced to disagree and move along. Worth a look, check it out.
In this talk Koukl quite effectively dismantles Chopra's arguments and doesn't let him get away with virtually anything. Koukl does an excellent job defending Christianity against Chopra and really has him on the run right out of the gate. Chopra then makes his situation go from bad to worse when he starts to shows his hand of a moral relativism which Koukl quickly closes on.
In talk at the University of California, Koukl talks about the impacts of a belief system founded on moral relativism. He says anyone who espouses moral relativism is actually, by definition, impotent to object to the action of any other being. Koukl talks about what he deems the myth of moral neutrality and the myth tolerance which moral relativism likes to set a double standard for. He also provides a series of fatal flaws of relativism which includes:
- A moral relativist can never say that someone did something wrong.
- A moral relativist can never say that there is evil in any capacity.
- A moral relativist can never demand tolerance.
- A moral relativist can never actually live out their beliefs.
- A moral relativist is a type of passive-aggressive.
» To get the audio for the talk visit the Veritas Forum. The notes to follow along with this talk can be downloaded here. «
In this sermon Laurie presents an overview of the resurrection of Christ and it's impact. He discusses how we know it happened and why some popular objections to the resurrection are untenable. He then gives five things that the resurrection of Jesus can assure us of. My personal favourite part is his analogy of the message at Waterloo to the disciples at Jesus resurrection in the last few minutes of the talk, something worth consideration.
Craig's opening statement presents four facts that are agreed upon among scholars that are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Ehrman's opening statement says that historians cannot say that Jesus probably rose from the dead as a conclusion because by definition a miracle is an improbable event and that the gospels have too many discrepancies to me historically accurate.
Veritas48, aka Noah, is one of the most popular YouTube apologist for modern theism. He is a graduate from the Biola University apologetics program and has defended theism, particularity Christianity, with hundreds of videos. He present a clear, honest, respectful and reflective view of Christianity and is a light on a hill in terms of integrity on YouTube. You can view his YouTube account here or his blog here.
At the start of 2010 Noah announced the start of his series on the Presumption of Atheism along with other popular theistic youtubers (who won't be listed here). Noah has four videos in the series, one introducing the series, the next clarifying some objections, one on getting the project started, and finally a large video on the actual case of the Presumption of Atheism. I will only embed the larger last video in here but will place links to all four below.
In this video, Noah covers topics on the Presumption of Atheism including the expectation of evidence and the expectation to have knowledge of the evidence. He presents a solid case for the presumption of atheism and shows why any atheist has an equal share in the burden of proof when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God.
- The Presumption of Atheism: A Project
- The Presumption of Atheism: Clarifying the Argument
- The Presumption of Atheism: Moving Along
- The Presumption of Atheism: The Absence of Evidence (embeded video below)
This debate was particularly interesting because it was actually set up as a series of mini debates. A quote is read and each side was given a three minute response and a one minute rebuttal. I believe there was a total of seven quotes read on various issues between atheism, theism and apologetics with varying degrees of agreement between the two participants.
Veritas48, aka Noah, is one of the more popular YouTube apologist for modern theism. He is a graduate from the Biola University apologetics program and has defended theism, particularity Christianity, with hundreds of videos. He present a clear, honest, respectful and reflective view of Christianity and is a light on a hill in terms of integrity on YouTube. You can view his YouTube account here or his blog here.
In this video Noah presents his version of the Axiological (moral) Argument for the existence of God. He explains how if absolute moral standards are to exist at all, then there must be something to set that standard. The reason this video is so valuable is because not only does Noah present a clear version of the argument, but he critics seven common alternative views on morality outside of Christian theism, they are:
- Ethical Subjectivism (Moral Relativism)
- Conventionalism (Cultural Relativism)
- Ethical Naturalism
- Moral Skepticism (Epistemological Version)
- Moral Skepticism (Ontological Version)
- Ethical Emotivism
- Ethical Platonism
Noah presents one of the most clear and concise presentations of the Kalam Cosmological Argument I have heard to date. He gives the argument not in it's typical syllogistic form but in the form of three exhaustive dilemmas:
- The universe either had a beginning or no beginning.
- Given 1, the beginning of the universe was either caused or uncaused.
- Given 2, the cause of the universe was either personal or impersonal.
This formulations seems to make the progression of the Kalam argument a little clearer to the laymen to follow step by step. Noah also goes over seven popular objections to the argument and why he believes they are invalid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
