This discussion/debate was hosted in February of 2009 at Biola University between Karl Giberson and John West. The topic in question was "Can A Christian Be A Darwinist?"
Karl Giberson is the author of "Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution" and is the Vice President of the BioLogos Foundation. John West is the author of "Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science" and is the Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.
The Kalam Cosmological argument has become one of the most popular defenses for the Christian faith in the past couple decades. The popularization of the argument it typically attributed to William Lane Craig who has virtually made a career out of it. However, despite the popularity of this argument and the multitude who understand the argument well in itself; I find there are very few who actually understand the underlying pillars of the argument.Over the next few weeks this series will take aim at those pillars. Pillars like the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, the expanding universe, the second law of thermodynamics, and more. Chances are all of these names have crossed our paths before, but how much do we really know about them? This series will aim to help fill in those gaps to present a fuller understanding of the Kalam and to increase your confidence on this argument.
Keith Parsons is probably one of the best opponents I've heard go against William Lane Craig to date. The topic in questions is "Why I am or am not a Christian."
Craig presents some of his typical arguments like the Kalam, the resurrection, and the experience of the Holy Spirit. Parsons then responds with arguments like the problem of pain/evil and an intriguing argument against the resurrection. The debate includes one of the most amusing Q&A sessions I've heard in quite some time. If you're a fan of Craig or Parsons, this debate is a must.
Unless you've still been living in the 2003 blackout for the past week, chances are you have heard of the recent controversy over episode 201 of South Park. Now, I prefer not to make public my opinion on these type of issues so I will do my best to state the simple facts of the matter.
The typical argument suggests that there is little to no difference between belief or disbelief in a God when compared to a mythical figure such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster; although other mythical figures such as Unicorns and Santa make frequent appearances. Personally, I believe that this particular argument stems from a simple lack of understanding in the Christian doctrine and has only become popular through the clever use of rhetoric.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a misrepresentation of the Doctrine of God with respect to things like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. along with philosophical conclusions such as being timeless, spaceless, immaterial, etc. Typically, the proponent will build up the relation between the FSM and God and then proceed to beat down the FSM as a Straw Man in an attempt to make belief in God seem ridiculous.
For more information on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Unicorns, and Santa Claus check out the links below:
