The Case For The Resurrection of Christ - Dr. Gary Habermas

Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 15). One of the ablest defenders of the historical evidence for the resurrection is Dr. Gary Habermas. here is a short clip of him on faith under fire. To see more resources by Dr. Habermas, you can visit his website.

Tactics for Our Spiritual Conversations

Every now and then, a book comes along that has the potential to really help Christians engage others well. Greg Koukl's recent book is one.

In a world increasingly indifferent to Christian truth, followers of Christ need to be equipped to communicate with those who do not speak their language or accept their source of authority. Gregory Koukl demonstrates how to get in the driver’s seat, keeping any conversation moving with thoughtful, artful diplomacy.

You’ll learn how to maneuver comfortably and graciously through the minefields, stop challengers in their tracks, turn the tables and—most importantly—get people thinking about Jesus. Soon, your conversations will look more like diplomacy than D-Day.

Drawing on extensive experience defending Christianity in the public square, Koukl shows you how to:

- Initiate conversations effortlessly
- Present the truth clearly, cleverly, and persuasively
- Graciously and effectively expose faulty thinking
- Skillfully manage the details of dialogue
- Maintain an engaging, disarming style even under attack

Tactics provides the game plan for communicating the compelling truth about Christianity with confidence and grace.

Why is Jesus the Only Way?

Why is Jesus the Only Way? Greg Koukl speaks to this question...

William Lane Craig vs Daniel Dennett on Arguments for Existence of God

I came across this post (HT Winter Knight), to some auido of an entertaining and enlightening interchange between Dennett (atheist) and Craig (theist). Give it a listen....

Here are some of the observations made by Wintery Knight blog...

Dennett’s response to Craig’s paper

"Here is my snarky paraphrase of Dennett’s reponse: (I haven’t been snarky all day!)

Craig’s three arguments are bulletproof, the premises are plausible, and grounded by the best cutting edge science we know today.

I cannot find anything wrong with his arguments right now, but maybe later when i go home it will come to me what’s wrong with them.

But atheism is true even if all the evidence is against it today. I know it’s true by my blind faith.

The world is so mysterious, and all the science of today will be overturned tomorrow so that atheism will be rational again. I have blind faith that this new evidence will be discovered any minute.

Just because the cause of the beginning of time is eternal and the cause of the beginning of space is non-physical, the cause doesn’t have to be God.

“Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7″. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)

The principle of triangulation might have brought the entire physical universe into being out of nothing.

I don’t understand anything about non-physical causation, even though I cannot even speak meaningful sentences unless I have a non-physical mind that is causing my body to emit the meaningful sentences in a non-determined manner.

Alexander Vilenkin is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.

Alan Guth is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.

This science stuff is so complicated to me – so Craig can’t be right about it even though he’s published about it and debated it all with the best atheists on the planet.

If God is outside of time, then this is just deism, not theism.

If deism is true, then I can still be an atheist, because a Creator and Designer of the universe is compatible with atheism.

I’m pretty sure that Craig doesn’t have any good arguments that can argue for Christianity – certainly not an argument for the resurrection of jesus that he’s defended against the most prominent historians on the planet."

Is Christianity or Atheism more rational?

Is Christianity or Atheism more rational? Here is an interesting interview with John Lennox (philosopher of Science and Mathematics at Oxford) regarding this question.

Does God Exist? Debate Now Available on DVD

The "Does God Exist" debate took place in front of a sold out crowd at Biola University on April 4, 2009. Over 4,200 people saw it live on-campus and and additional 11,000 viewed it from around the globe through a special webcast. Don't miss this debate between one of the finest Christian philosophers alive today, Dr. William Lane Craig, and Christopher Hitchens, who is one of the most outspoken atheists in a century.

Read the Biola's News Report on this Debate. Click Here

Order a DVD.

What is the New Atheism?

I came across this clip by Tim Keller. It is a succinct summary of the New Atheism.







Check out Timothy Keller's response in Reason for God.

Chance or Design?

I came across this clip and was again reminded of how easy "design" is to recognize in everyday life; but then how ironic it is that design is a forbidden inference when we look at "really small" or "really big" stuff like the bacterial flagellum or the universe. Enjoy this clip...

Secrets of the Bible???

I was getting a cup of coffee at my local Barnes and Noble yesterday and came across a special magazine issue on "Secrets of the Bible" by US News and World Report. Here is an excerpt from the back:

"...But even though it has been read, interpreted, analyzed, and dissected countless times, there are still puzzling omissions, murky passages, and, yes, mysteries to the Bible's origins and composition. Now Secrets of the Bible delves into these untold tales to reveal the latest theories and insights from renowned scholars...."

Now I love a good mystery....but these magazines seldom tell the whole story or give a "balanced" treatment of the issues (just look at the sampling of scholars interviewed). Now I am not saying they shouldn't be interviewed...but where are the scholars, of the the same caliber and credentials, who argue for the Bible's accuracy, historical reliability, etc.? (contrary to popular opinion, they do exist). Christian faith is not blind and we have nothing to fear from searching for the truth. Hearty discussion is good.

So, I want to recommend a full-color, short book that addresses the question of how we got the Bible. This is done by a leading NT scholar (Dr. Clint Arnold) and the images of ancient texts and other artifacts are simply amazing. In How We Got the Bible: A Visual Journey you will explore:

How did the Bible come to be?

How has it been passed down to us through the ages?

Is it still trustworthy and relevant after all these years?

"The Bible is the bestselling book of all time and the basis of faith for billions of people around the world. Encompassing the fields of archaeology, biblical studies, and history, the story of how the Bible has come to us today is a fascinating one. It is told here, accompanied by beautiful full-color photographs and illustrations."

Richard Dawkins believes in god????

Maybe. Yeah, I know, pretty interesting. You can read the whole article here (which is insightful). But the short of it is that at a recent debate, Dawkins - Mr. God Delusion himself - conceded that, wait for it, "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Stop the presses!!

That would be similar in principle to the case that Anthony Flew makes in his recent conversion to deism, in There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. This is a fascinating read--even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Has Science Killed God?

Oxford professor John Lennox says no and gives a compelling case why. He refutes the arguments offered by the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins.

The book is God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? And it needs to be on your bookshelf. It is accessible and substantive--a difficult thing to do.

(About the Author) John Lennox is reader in mathematics in the University of Oxford and fellow in mathematics and the philosophy of science at Green College. He has lectured in many universities around the world, including Austria and the former Soviet Union. He is particularly interested in the interface of science, philosophy, and theology.

Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics

In light of the conversation we are having here about the Moral Argument, I wanted to make you aware of a new book debating these issues.

(From Publisher's Website)

Morality and religion: intimately wed, violently opposed, or something else? Discussion of this issue appears in pop culture, the academy, and the media—often generating radically opposed views. At one end of the spectrum are those who think that unless God exists, ethics is unfounded and the moral life is unmotivated. At the other end are those who think that religious belief is unnecessary for—and even a threat to—ethical knowledge and the moral life.This volume provides an accessible, charitable discussion that represents a range of views along this spectrum. The book begins with a lively debate between Paul Kurtz and William Lane Craig on the question, Is goodness without God good enough? Kurtz defends the affirmative position and Craig the negative. Following the debate are new essays by prominent scholars. These essays comment on the debate and advance the broader discussion of religion and morality. The book closes with final responses from Kurtz and Craig.

List of Contributors: Louise Antony, William Lane Craig, John Hare, Donald C. Hubin, Paul Kurtz, C. Stephen Layman, Mark C. Murphy, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Richard Swinburne.

About the Editors:

Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King are Ph.D. candidates in the philosophy department at the University of Notre Dame.

Does God Exist? Cont. (the Moral Argument)

Well, let's continue our discussion. In order to stay on task, here is the argument as it stands:

If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.

Objective moral values & duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

An important clarification needs to be made here. Often, people misinterpret the argument to entail that people cannot live moral lives or 'be good' unless they believe in God. This of course if false and it isn't the argument here. The argument here concerns, what makes the best since of objective moral values and duties. What is a sufficient ground for them if they exist? So atheists can live moral lives. It remains to be seen however if atheism has the resources to provide ontological grounding for objective goods, duties and values which one would then have an obligation to exemplifying.

By way of review, premise 2 seems solid (at the very least more probable than its contradictory).

So what of premise 1 - that objective moral values and duties would not exist if God did not exist?

Let's ask the question this way. It seems to me that Atheism entails Naturalism. And Naturalism reduces all existence to physics and chemistry. Non-physical stuff like consciousness, minds, freedom of the will, moral obligations, and beauty seem out of place in such a worldview.

So moral values and obligations if they exist, on an atheistic view, would arise from only three sources (can you think of any others that would possibly be objective?).

1. social agreement (but does this confer ontological grounding to what we agree on?)
2. evolutionary emergence (but in what since are these objective instead of arbitrary?)
3. some sort of platonic heaven as abstract objects (but how do abstract objects, like numbers, confer obligations?) 
   

So the question then is, what is the more reasonable inference? That God grounds objective morality and duty in his very essence, being, and character or these three possibilities?

What do you think?

I will post more of my thoughts on these 3 options soon.

Truth....Not Always Comfortable

“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair”—C.S. Lewis

Not everything that is comfortable is true. Moreover, comfort is no safe indicator of truth. In fact; if we are never made uncomfortable, then we may be living under the illusion that we are the final arbiters / creators of reality (not a safe place to be because we are finite / fallen humans). But someday...maybe not today, nor tomorrow...but someday, we will all bump up against the truth. And if we 'make it up' - then on a really bad day, we will be unable to convince ourselves otherwise, because we cannot lie to ourselves forever.

Thought about truth lately? Take a listen to Os Guinness' talk Time for Truth: Living Free in a World of Lies, Hype, and Spin