Two Dozen or So of Dr. Craig's Favorite Debates

1. Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson at the Cambridge Union. Debating at Cambridge University in the world’s oldest debating society was just magic. The tradition, the galleries filled with students, the chamber well in which I and my colleague Peter Williams spoke made for the experience of a lifetime.

2. Shabir Ally numerous times in Canada. These debates gave me the chance to speak to heavily Muslim audiences, who wouldn’t have come to a Christian event. Perhaps my favorite was our debate at York University, as I remember, on the topic “What Must I Do to Be Saved?” because it allowed the Gospel to be so clearly stated and defended. Shabir is one of the toughest, cagiest opponents I’ve ever been dealt. He’ll twist you in knots if you’re not careful. I even started writing some lyrics after one of our debates about him (to be sung to the tune of Disney’s “Prince Ali”):

Shabir Ally, wily is he!
Crafty and cagey!
Turns things around,
Quotes Raymond Brown
In support of Islam!

Alas, that’s as far as I got!

3. Peter Atkins at the Carter Center in Atlanta. This amazing event came together through the efforts of Dr. Jim Tumlin, a kidney doctor at Emory University and a man with a vision. Not only was he able to get the Carter Center as the venue, but he got Atkins to come over from Oxford and William F. Buckley to moderate the debate. If you look at the video, you’ll see in the audience people like Fritz Schaeffer, Michael Behe, Ravi Zacharias, and Eddie Tabash. In fact, when they cut off the audience Q&A, you’ll see Ravi is left standing at the microphone—what a squandered opportunity!

4. Hector Avalos at Iowa State. A seven inch snowfall didn’t keep the 3,000 students away from this debate! This debate required me to launch an unusual and risky pre-emptive attack in my opening speech on Avalos’ methods. The debate was memorable because of the big softball Avalos served up by demanding that I quote the Aramaic behind a certain phrase in the Gospel of Mark, hoping to embarrass me. He didn’t realize that I was ready to quote, not only the Aramaic, but the Hebrew and Greek as well.

5. Francisco Ayala at University of Indiana on the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. I had heard Ayala lecture some months earlier when we were both at Beijing University, and it troubled me deeply the way he misled the Chinese students by attacking straw man arguments for Intelligent Design. I thought, I’d like to debate him someday on the viability of Intelligent Design. Soon thereafter, I got the chance. My goal in this debate was, not to argue for Intelligent Design in biology, but merely to defend its viability against Ayala’s caricatures of it. I especially enjoyed reading to the audience from Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box that the human eye is NOT an example of irreducible complexity, contrary to Ayala’s mischaracterization of Behe’s work.

6. Richard Carrier at Northern Missouri State. With a degree in ancient history, Carrier had become the “great white hope” for many in the infidel subculture. So there was a lot riding on this debate. Carrier wanted to debate the general reliability of the Gospels, but I was interested in defending the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, which is quite independent of general reliability claims. He agreed to the topic of the resurrection but to my amazement tried to turn the debate to the topic of general reliability, with the result that we largely failed to engage. My goal in this debate was not only to defend the historicity of Jesus’ empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection, but to expose the flawed Pauline exegesis at the root of Carrier’s scepticism. I should also say that on the long drive to airport the next day I found Richard to be a very congenial fellow, and I especially admired his service to our country aboard a naval nuclear submarine!

7. John Dominic Crossan at historic Moody Church in Chicago. Crossan was at that time a big cheese in the Jesus Seminar as well as a prominent historical Jesus scholar. It was one of my first debates with a professional New Testament historian, and I wondered how my arguments would hold up. As the debate unfolded, I was stunned that Crossan thought that explaining Markan priority and the two-source hypothesis sufficed to undo evangelical biblical scholarship. I think the key moment in the debate, which was moderated by the inimitable William F. Buckley, came when Crossan admitted that on his view during the Jurassic age, when no human beings existed, God did not exist—no wonder he denies the reality of miracles like the resurrection!

8. Bart Ehrman at Holy Cross. I was intrigued that Ehrman’s early life story so paralleled my own until we hit doctoral studies. In reading his work, I was shocked to find that his scepticism about Jesus’ resurrection was not historically based—he admitted all the facts I defend in my work—, but was rooted in a warmed-over version of Hume’s objection to miracles. So in the debate I explained why Hume’s argument is demonstrably fallacious, patiently explaining the probability calculus, to which Ehrman responded by saying that you can’t use mathematics to prove the existence of God!

9. Antony Flew at the University of Wisconsin. Flew was perhaps the 20th century’s most influential philosopher for atheism. It was a privilege to debate him. Some 4,000 students came to the fieldhouse that night (the night of a basketball game, to boot!). They just disappeared up into the lights. Flew was nervous (“My wife told me I should never have gotten involved in this,” he told me over dinner prior to our debate). What folks who see the tape don’t realize, though, is that as he began to speak his microphone failed. Students in the audience began to shout, “Can’t hear you!” “Speak up!” Flew became rattled and began to stomp around the stage, saying angrily, “If this isn’t going to work, we may as well call the whole thing off!” I was afraid he was going to storm off the stage! They quickly gave him the microphone from my podium. He continued but never really recovered.

10. A.C. Grayling at the Oxford Union. What a thrill to debate before a packed house in the same place where Churchill and other great parliamentarians had debated! When Grayling, who has flowing long hair, came into the chamber, he looked at me and said, “You win for the better necktie.” I responded, “You win for the better hair!” He said, “Then we’re even!” The topic that night was a tough one emotionally: “Is it rational to believe in God in light of tsunamis?” But I felt the debate went very well.

11. Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame. It was such a privilege to be invited by the Center for Philosophy of Religion at UND to engage in this debate! I was keenly aware that in this debate I was holding forth before my own philosophical colleagues in the department at Notre Dame, and so I was anxious to acquit myself well. I developed some really powerful arguments against Harris’ naturalistic moral theory, and to my astonishment he didn’t even try to respond to my objections during the debate but just tried to get me to chase red herrings.

12. Christopher Hitchens at Biola University. I declined more than once Dr. Craig Hazen’s invitation to participate in this debate, knowing that Hitchens had little understanding of the arguments but was a golden-tongued rhetorician. I figured it would be a waste of time. But Dr. Hazen explained that the student association was already on the hook for Hitchens’ honorarium whether anyone showed up to debate him or not. So I relented, and am I glad I did! Over 800,000 people have watched this debate on YouTube, making it by far the most viewed debate I’ve ever been in. BTW, everybody I know really liked Hitchens, and many were praying for him as he faced his final days with esophageal cancer.

13. Doug Jesseph at North Carolina State. Prior to this debate, I had been feeling rather disgruntled with the many poor debates I had participated in up to that point and was wondering, what would happen if I had a really good opponent? I was soon to find out. I knew something was afoot when Jesseph insisted on going first in the debate, even though the affirmative always goes first. Why did he want to break protocol and go first? I asked myself. I bet he’s going to launch a pre-emptive attack on my arguments before I even give them! Sure enough, that’s exactly what he did! He went through my arguments in order and presented two or three objections to each one. Boy, I’m really in for it now! I thought. But, of course, I was expecting him to do this, so I had prepared a short speech which gave me time to respond extemporaneously to his objections and at least bring me back to even ground. As the debate progressed, the momentum seemed to swing after each successive speech, and it wasn’t until the final rebuttal that I felt I pulled ahead. Afterward, I shook his hand and said, “You’re a very good debater!” “Thanks,” he said, “I was on my university debate team.” Ha! So he combined philosophical depth with debate training, making him a great opponent.

14. H. Hoerster at the Technische Universität München. For this debate I was back in Munich, where I had done my doctorate at the University of Munich. Hoerster was a typical free-thought rabble-rouser with just enough philosophical depth to be dangerous. I felt that trying to debate in German would give too great an advantage to him, so we agreed that I’d give my opening speech in German and my rebuttals in English with spontaneous translation. Hoerster, of course, did the whole thing in German. During prayer with Christian faculty before the debate, one of the professors prayed, “Lord, make it so that the hall is not almost empty.” Oh, ye of little faith! The large hall soon filled to the gills, and Hoerster and I had a great debate. One interesting factoid: between Hoerster, me, and the moderator Daniel von Wachter were represented six earned doctoral degrees! Only in Germany!

15. Lawrence Krauss at North Carolina State. It was a daunting experience to be debating an eminent physicist on “Is there scientific evidence for God?” I prepared hard for the debate and so was surprised that Krauss’ objections never really got beyond level one, so to speak. What was particularly bizarre was when he began to strip off his shirt, revealing a T-shirt with the words “2+2=5, for very large values of 2.” Wha--?

16. Paul Kurtz at Franklin and Marshall College. A year previously Alan Dershowitz had met Alan Keyes for a rowdy debate as part of this funded series. I felt honored when Prof. Michael Murray invited me to debate the famous humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz on “Can we be good without God?” I was determined that our debate would be considerably more substantive than the previous year’s debate. Kurtz didn’t seem to understand my moral argument for God but took me to be saying that atheists can’t be good people.

17. Gert Lüdemann at Boston College. Lüdemann is the principal German critic of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, and so, having written my doctoral thesis in Germany on the credibility of Jesus’ resurrection, I was eager to cross swords with him on this issue. Lüdemann defends a psychoanalytic theory of the origin on the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection on the basis of guilt-induced visions of Jesus after his death. I prepared a lengthy critique of what I called the Hallucination Hypothesis, which I thought went over well. The morning after the debate, Jan and I were having breakfast with Lüdemann in the priests’ refectory. Jan asked him pointedly, “What do you do about sin in your life?” He replied, “I go to therapy.” We were taken aback. “Well, what does the therapist do for you?” we asked. Lüdemann replied, “He induces visions in me.” I was stunned. It seemed one more example of what had been said of the line of nineteenth century Life of Jesus researchers: “Each one looked down the long well of history and saw his own face reflected at the bottom.”

18. Peter Millican at the University of Birmingham. What made this debate against a fine Hume scholar so memorable for me is that it took place in the Great Hall of the University of Birmingham, where I had done my doctorate in philosophy with John Hick. In fact, the afternoon of the debate, Jan and I visited John in his home. He passed away just a few months later. The beautiful Great hall was packed out that night for the event, and many have since told me that the exchange with Millican is the most substantive debates I’ve been in, a truly good debate.

19. Henry Morgenthaler several times across Canada. Morgenthaler was an infamous Canadian abortionist and president of the Canadian Humanist Association. He agreed to a series of debates on “Humanism vs. Christianity,” on the condition that we would not discuss abortion (a topic he was tired of). That was great by me, so several debates were scheduled. Prior to flying to Canada I was in Thousand Oaks, California, speaking at a church. After the service a man approached me and introduced himself as someone who works with people in Hollywood. He said, “I’m not saying that you’re poorly dressed, but clothes make a statement about yourself, and if you’re going to be debating this prominent Canadian personality, you need be sure you’re making the right statement. I’d like to help you if you’re willing.” I replied, “Look, I don’t want to come across like some well-heeled televangelist. I’d rather look a little tatty.” He said, “I understand. But we can make the correct statement without being extreme.” So he took me that afternoon to see his tailor at Nordstroms. He bought me a beautiful charcoal gray suit with a cranberry pink stripe, a pair of oxblood wingtips, a couple of white dress shirts, and two silk ties. I was just overwhelmed. I felt like Elisa Doolittle in “My Fair Lady“! Sure enough, after the first debate the story in the newspaper the next day described Morgenthaler and me as “a study in contrasts” and remarked in particular on his rumpled suit in contrast to my suit. Ha! Morgenthaler, by the way, had very little to say in response to my arguments for Christian theism and so reverted to talking about abortion in all of our remaining debates.

20. Alex Rosenberg at Purdue University. I really enjoyed this debate, perhaps because I had prepared so hard for it. Rosenberg had obviously been coached to say in his opening speech that I was using the same, old arguments, oblivious to the fact that two of them were brand-new and had never been used by me before. I especially enjoyed offering a critique of his metaphysical naturalism, since in every case he himself furnishes the key premiss that reduces his view to absurdity.

21. Peter Slezak in the Town Hall, Sydney, Australia. What made this debate so memorable was the extraordinary Sydney Town Hall. The front of the auditorium is draped with brilliant crimson curtains flanking the most enormous pipe organ I’d ever seen. The padded seats match the color of the curtain. The technician who ran the lights told me he had worked there ten years and had never had to turn on all the lights because the hall had never been full before, as it was that night. It was a beautiful venue for a very good exchange.

22. Spangenberg-Wolmarans in Pretoria, South Arica. It was the African setting that made this debate special. I teamed up with Mike Licona to take on these two radical, South African theologians of the so-called “New Reformation” movement on the subject of Jesus’ historical resurrection. The South African Christians impressed upon us time and again how crucial this debate was to the church in South Africa. As happens all too often, these two theologians were just incapable of responding to criticisms of their view or undermining a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection. Again and again they resorted to red herrings to try to get us off-topic, but Mike stoutly resisted the temptation and kept the debate on track. Mike is a great tag-team partner, and we really clicked together in this debate. Afterwards, an obviously angry Spangenberg said to us, “You may have won the battle, but not the war!”

23. John Shelby Spong at Bethel College in Indiana. Spong is a radical Episcopalian bishop who denies Jesus’ historical resurrection, along with most other Christian doctrines. He thinks that belief in Jesus’ resurrection originated when Simon Peter had a mystical experience of Jesus after his crucifixion which he was unable to articulate, and so he adopted the Jewish apocalyptic language of resurrection from the dead to express what he had experienced. Moreover, all the other disciples went along with using this misleading terminology. I called this theory the “Simple Simon Theory,” since it makes Peter such a simpleton. Judaism had language for expressing mystical experiences, and resurrection language utterly misrepresented what had happened. The day of the debate I was terribly ill with the flu, but Jan nursed me right up until the moment we went on, and then adrenalin took over. After the debate, Spong confided to us, “Really, I’m just a mystic!” Gee, just like Simon Peter!

24. Tjörbörn Tannsjö in Gothenberg, Sweden. I was in Sweden for a university speaking tour arranged by Credo Academy of Stockholm. I was told by a prominent Swedish philosopher during the tour that there are literally no Christian philosophers in Sweden. The climax of the speaking tour was a conference which featured a debate with Sweden’s leading ethicist, a philosopher who enjoys great exposure in the Swedish media. So our debate on the foundations of morality was an important event. It went very well, and in the end Tannsjö admitted that if God does not exist, then “all things are permitted.”

25. Lewis Wolpert in Central Hall, Westminster. Since the organizers of my 2011 British speaking tour couldn’t get Richard Dawkins, they got the next in line, who was the biologist Lewis Wolpert. I have never debated in more august a venue than Central Hall. Right across the street from Westminster Abbey, it is a vast and ornate meeting hall. The organizers weren’t sure whether 200 or 2,000 people would show up for this debate. As it turned out, 2,200 filled the hall. The debate was moderated by BBC personality John Humphries, who is a sort of Mike Wallace of British television. He did a great job, and the dialogue portion of the evening was especially entertaining. It was a great kick-off to what turned out to be an extraordinary tour.

26. Frank Zindler at Willow Creek Community Church. This debate was organized by two Willow Creek pastors Lee Strobel and Mark Mittelberg. They flew us in from Belgium to debate the chosen representative of American Atheists, Frank Zindler. Bill Hybels told Mark and Lee they’d be lucky if 300 people showed up for this debate. Well, people started arriving early in the afternoon. The Willow Creek traffic wardens heroically crammed hundreds of more cars into the lots than their normal capacity. When they finally opened the doors, people ran down the aisles to find seats. The entire 5,000 seat auditorium filled in 30 seconds. One woman later exclaimed, “When was the last time you saw people runninginto church?” All in all, nearly 8,000 people filled the various venues, making it the largest indoor event Willow Creek had ever hosted. Moreover, the afternoon before the debate WMBI in Chicago came out to the church and hand carried equipment up to the roof to erect a radio transmitter to broadcast the debate live around the Chicagoland area, complete with color commentary. We later heard of one family in southern Wisconsin who was listening to the debate until the signal began to fade. They then moved out to the family car in the driveway, where they could get clear reception. They said the neighbors must have thought they were crazy, all of them sitting in the car in the driveway cheering and applauding! There are a hundred backstories about this amazing debate. Here’s one of them: Zindler had published voluminously in obscure atheist magazines. Chad Meister had a group of volunteers at Willow in his Defenders class who were tracking down these various sources for me. But no one could locate one particular atheist magazine in which Zindler had several articles. Even the massive Chicago Public Library had no subscription to it. One day Chad or one of his volunteers was in the Rolfing Library at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, my alma mater. He remarked to one of the student librarians about his frustration in locating this magazine. “Come with me,“ the student said, and he took him downstairs to the library archives in the basement. “For years someone has been donating to Trinity a subscription to that magazine, but we don’t put it out.” And there were the complete holdings of that atheist magazine! At Trinity, of all places! Can you imagine? The debate that night was so exciting, and of the three Christians involved in it, Lee, Mark, and I, each has gone on to have a significant apologetics ministry.

What a life!

Read full article HERE

Is Biblical Prophecy a Powerful Apologetic Tool?

Well, that is a subject I address in this teaching, "The Power of Prophecy."  The Early Church apologists such as Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus appealed to Biblical prophecy as a powerful evidence of the truth of the Scriptures and the Christian worldview.

Did you know these facts about Biblical Prophecy:

- It's the only book in the world that has predicted history in advance.
- About 27% of the Scriptures are prophetic predictions of future events.
- The Scriptures contain about 1,000 predictions, and over 8,000 prophetic verses.
- The Bible is the only book in history to have 100% prophetic accuracy.

Watch this teaching, "The Power of Prophecy" and we hope it will give you a good understanding of why Revelation 19:10 tells us that the evidence of Jesus Christ is the reason we have prophecy.

- Pastor J. 

*** Important Date August 15 ***

Hey guys,

on August the 15th we will be launching our brand new Intelligent Faith website. It has a media center where you can find our audio, video, podcasts, and radio programs, all of our posts (almost 600!!) are categorized so you don't have to look too far to find a specific topic you are looking for, you can submit questions to us from our question page and many many more!!

Please check in on August the 15th, we will be having a special give away on that day!

.... and remember to ALWAYS have an Intelligent Faith!

The 7 Concepts of God: #5 - FINITE GODISM

Worldview #5 - Finite Godism:  

"There is one limited god!"

Though the words are not in Greek, he may not be very familiar with the worldview of finite godism.  As the name suggests, this view of reality beliefs that God exists, is beyond the world, but is limited in power and imperfection. This view happens to be very similar in some ways to the worldview of polytheism, however, finite godism believes that there is only one single god in the universe.  This worldview suffers from many of the same problems and defeaters as polytheism.

Here is a comparison of the beliefs of finite godism and biblical Christianity:

Limited God of Finite Godism: The One God of Biblical Christianity:
God partially controls the universe.         God is sovereignly ruling over the universe.
God is very imperfect.                           God is absolutely and infinitely perfect.
God is finite and very limited.                 God is absolutely infinite and unlimited.
God has limited power.                          God is All-Powerful (omnipotent).
God has limited knowledge.                    God is All-Knowing (omniscient).
God does not do miracles.                      God can do miracles and supernatural acts.
God needs our help and prayers.            God needs nothing and is in total control of all.
God can't control all evil in the world.        God has total control over all that happens. 

 A person who seriously believes in the god of finite godism might say something like this:

"We have to pray for god and try to help him out.

After all, god is doing the best that he can with His limited power.

He can't be expected to control everything."

Though this may sound strange to a believer in the God of Scripture, devoted followers of finite godism such as Rabbi Kushner have been quoted many times saying things of this nature. Unfortunately, Rabbi Kushner lost one of his sons in a Nazi concentration camp in the second world war, and because of this has concluded that God isn't able to stop the evil and suffering in the world. Many people also consider the god of finite godism to be the object of worship that Plato described in his writings, and also the god of John Stewart Mill, a scientific intellectual of the 1800's.

As is our habit, let's put the worldview of finite godism to the "boomerang test" and see if it does any better than the previous worldviews we've discussed.

The first problem that we notice, is that by definition, God cannot be something that is finite or limited in any real way. The classical definition of God, even outside of Christianity, is a being that is unlimited, perfect, and infinite in all of his attributes and qualities.  Right from the start, we see that finite godism doesn't even define God in a logical fashion, and therefore, doesn't even get off the ground has a decent or logical worldview of reality.

Secondly, it appears that finite god ism goes against one of the most important laws of logic, namely the Law of Causality.  By the way, this is an extremely valuable law of logic to have a good understanding of when you talk to people of different worldviews. Since this is such a fundamental principle in reality, any worldview that violates it cannot logically be true. Some people call this "the law of cause and effect" and it can be stated in many different ways all equally true. Here are some of the ways it can be expressed:

- "Every contingent being is caused by another."
- "Every limited being is caused by another."
- "Every thing that begins to exist has a cause."
- "Nonbeing cannot cause being."
- "Out of Nothing, nothing comes."
- "Nothing cannot /create something."

though some of these definitions of the law of causality may be unfamiliar to you, I'm sure that you've heard it expressed its most common form:

"Every effect has a cause."

As I said earlier in finite god ism flows contrary to this law of causality. The reason for this is that the God of finite god ism would need to cause himself, in which case he would not be God at all but simply a finite creature. It appears that finite godism, just as with pantheism, atheism, and polytheism, is also guilty of incredible self-contradictions!

Thirdly, in the worldview of finite godism there is no ultimate guarantee of God's victory over evil. This is due to the fact that followers of finite god ism freely admit that God is not in ultimate control over all of the evil, suffering, and pain in the world. Rather, as Rabbi Kushner has often said, people need to pray for God and help him so that the evil in the world can be conquered and defeated. Again, we see that finite God is and is guilty of a horribly self-defeating idea. If God were not in ultimate control of the universe, and needed help in combating the evils of our world, this would make evil more ultimate than good, and even more ultimate than God himself! God wouldn't be God, since by definition God is the most ultimate being metaphysically that there is.

Fourthly and finally, the limited god of finite guys is not ultimately worthy of worship and devotion. On the practical level, if the God of finite godism is very imperfect, and extremely limited in its knowledge, power, and ability to guide reality, then why should anyone be expected to worship him?  Only a God that is infinite and unlimited in power, goodness, knowledge, and all other perfections is ultimately worthy of a person's praise, devotion, and worship.

As with the other worldviews we have already surveyed, finite god ism takes its place among those perspectives of reality that are self-contradictory, self-defeating, logically incoherent, and practically unlivable.

- Pastor J. 

Argument from Contingency

Hello Dr. Craig,

I have a question about the "mystery of existence" basically. I’m an agnostic who used to be a Christian and I continue to think about theological questions and am open minded (I also have listened to all your podcasts and am continually engaged with your work). I recently watched a part of the "Closer to Truth" Series with Robert Lawrence Khun which you appeared on, but this segment was with the Physicist Steven Weinberg. His statements help to formulate my question and get you to see what I’m driving at.

Robert was asking him, “Some people say that science will hit a wall where they will get to something that will be beyond the bounds of scientific explanation and that's where religion comes in and purportedly has an answer" (I’m paraphrasing). He said that he agrees about what they say about science but doesn't agree with the part about religion. He basically says that if science is lucky, it will hit that wall, and have some final theory that is as far as it can go and that at the end of it you can ask "why this?" He grants that there is an "irreducible mystery (which I think is interesting since you definitely wouldn't hear that from someone like a Lawrence Krauss) but he thinks that the religious person has an equal mystery. He says if you ask a religious person "What is God like?" and they say I have no idea, then the notion really has no content and is just a three-letter word. But if they go on to say things like, "He’s kind, all powerful, loving, merciful, or humorous etc..." then the question must come up, "Why that?"

I think you would probably respond with things like the ontological argument, moral argument, God's being a metaphysically necessary being etc. but as an agnostic I have (and even as a believer) wondered, if God exists, why does he exist? This led me to think about "mystery" concerning the view of the naturalist/atheist and the theist, and I think there might be a reason why the theist might have an upper hand in this case.

If the naturalist is a physicalist, and lets also say takes a tenseless view on the nature of time, thus leaving you with a 4 dimensional space-time block, there would just be this block existing inexplicably and timelessly. This would seem to remove the need to answer such questions as "What was before the Big Bang, or what caused it" and such problems, but you would still be left with this mystery of an inexplicable block.

But if there were a God as roughly conceived by Theists, it seems to me the Theist would have the following advantage over the naturalist as regards the mystery of existence. In the naturalists case (as I’ve conceived it) you have this block that exists timelessly and inexplicably in the sense that there's no reason why its there (and its not like you can ask it why it exists) but in the case of God, who lets say is something like a mind, and is therefore relational, and if we are also roughly minds as well, it seems that we could relate to this Being in a way that we couldn't to the ultimate reality of the b-theory naturalist's space-time block in that we could ask God why he exists. Granted its probably not possible that He/It could answer us in a language or a semantic sense, he could possibly make it known to us in a relational way, by knowing us intimately and communing with us so that we could in a sense "become apart of “or share in the knowledge of his necessary existence and eternality. In any case I think it would be less mysterious if God existed than the block because God is a mind and you can relate to a mind (even though there would be a lesser kind of mystery in the sense that God is infinite and thus cant be exhaustively known or comprehended).

I wonder if you think that the theist does have a advantage in this way and if you disagree with Weinberg about the theist being equally perplexed at the mystery of existence.

Thank you.

Christian

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

NEW: "What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?" - Dr. William Lane Craig

What is perhaps the most powerful argument for 

God's existence today?

Here is a colorful, captivating, and concise description of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence, from the team at "drcraigvideos."

This is perhaps one of the most useful and potent arguments in today's culture of "scientism", so you would do well to memorize the simple 19 words of this wonderful argument for the existence of God:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Calculating the Probability of God’s Existence

Dr. Craig,

I am a long timer viewer, my wife and I personally enjoy your On Guard book and my kids enjoy the What is God Like series. My question is one born from frustration dealing with a particular atheist colleague of mine. I definitely affects others around me, including myself, and I can't find anything in your books or website to help address this regarding the probably of God existing equals zero.
He says that When you want to find out the probability of an event happening, you simple divide the event by the total of all events. A simple example of this is the probability of rolling a 1 on a six-sided die, which would be 1 (the event you want) divided by 6 (all possible events). So when you want to know the probability that god exists, you simple divide the one you choose by all possible other events. Since you have no proof that indicate any one god is more likely than any other god, this gives you an infinite number of possible events. So doing the probability you get 1 divided by infinity which is zero." When questioned that infinity is the incorrect constant to use he replied with, Ok, why isn't infinity the right number to use? Do you have some proof for a specific god that nobody seems to know about? If you don't, then how is any other god not just as likely? This isn't rocket science, it's basic logic. Since I don't have to prove they exist, I can make up new gods all day long. When something is unprovable it has a infinite set of like instances by default. Again, that's basic logic.

Jason

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #4 - POLYTHEISM

Polytheism:  "There are many limited gods!"

A fourth worldview that we'll quickly examine is that of polytheism, which comes from the two Greek words "poly" for many, and from "theism" for god.  Obviously, this is the view that says there are many finite limited gods controlling and influencing reality together. Modern day examples of polytheism include Mormonism, Hinduism, the New Age movement, and the surviving remnants of the ancient cults of worshipping the many Roman, Greek, and Norse gods.

In the popular media today, polytheism is probably most often seen in superhero comic books and movies.  This would include productions like "Avengers", "Thor", "the Immortals", and even Disney's cartoon version of "Hercules."  In all of these movies, there appears at least one character who happens to be a "god" from a certain world or a certain realm in the universe.  These "gods" are not all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinite, but rather like superpowers humans who come from another dimension.

A person who is a polytheist may tell it to you in many different ways, depending upon which religion, or philosophy the persons subscribes to.  For example a Mormon man, who believes in what they call the "Law of Eternal Progression", could say:

" As men now is, God once was,

and as God now is, men may become."

For the Mormon male, this means that they hope to achieve personal godhood through a lifetime of faithful service and obedience to the Mormon church, in keeping with the three different books they hold to in addition to the Christian Bible. These Mormon males believe that they will each personally rule over their own universe, which would be populated by the offspring of them many hundreds of "spirit wives."

In the far east, a practicing Hindu (though also a pantheist) might share his polytheistic beliefs with you in this way:

"The goddess Kali desires for me to go after what I want in life."

Or perhaps would say:

"Lord Vishnu has blessed my family with prosperity this year."

For the follower of the New Age movement, a typical declaration of their concept of God, would be that of Shirley McClain as she famously stands upon the beach sure, with arms spread open, and face lift up to the sky, wearing a metal triangle hat, passionately crying out:

"I am God! I am God! I am God!"

Though it can take many forms, even in our modern day and age, polytheism centers around the basic belief that there are many finite and limited gods directing and influencing the events of the universe. A quick comparison of the many "gods" of polytheism with the biblical concept of God, would look something like this:

Limited Gods of Polytheism:          The One God of Biblical Christianity:
Gods partially control the universe. God is sovereignly ruling over the universe.
Gods are very imperfect. God is absolutely and infinitely perfect.
Gods are authors of good and evil. God is All-Good (omnibenevolent).
Gods are very finite.         God is absolutely infinite and unlimited.
Gods have limited power.         God is All-Powerful (omnipotent).
Gods have limited knowledge. God is All-Knowing (omniscient).
Gods are limited to one location. God is Ever-Present everywhere (omnipresent).

As we apply "the boomerang test" to polytheism, it quickly fails just like the other non-Christian worldviews about reality.  First, polytheism simply pushes the God question back one step further. If the "gods" are the ultimate answer for the beginning and source of the universe, then who is? This view of reality just pushes the question of origins back another step by appealing to many finite limited gods, without giving us an ultimate answer to the question.

Secondly, the very fact that these "gods" are finite and limited would seem to disqualify them from being God, in the classical sense. In the most basic sense, to be God means to be the ultimate being, the greatest being, in the most perfect being who is himself unlimited in any way, but also infinite in every way. The polytheistic idea of God runs head on against this classical concept of God.

Thirdly, it has to be realized, that even the polytheistic "gods", would ultimately need an infinite and eternal Creator. After all every finite effect, ultimately, needs and infinite cause. Every being that is dependent and contingent, requires a being that is independent and necessary to be it's Source for existence.  In this way, polytheism quickly "slits its own throat" intellectually.

Fourthly, as was stated above, it seems that in Polytheism the followers are merely worshipping a glorified, finite, limited creature as a "god."  How is it logically possible to call something "God" that is finite, limited, and striving towards perfection, just as his creatures are? Wouldn't this be a very good Biblical definition of "idolatry"? Worshiping a finite, limited, and imperfect creature in the place of the infinite, perfect, and unlimited Creator God seems obviously a lot like logical absurdity and spiritual idolatry.

It might be good enough for comic books, in modern day movie hits, but polytheism isn't strong enough intellectually or logically, to stand up and function in the world of reality!

- Pastor J.

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #3 - PANENTHEISM

Panentheism:  "God is in the world!"

If we picture Atheism as an empty physical universe without any god, and Pantheism as a universe that is itself God, then Panentheism is a universe in which God would be inside of it all.  The actual word "panentheism" is made up of three Greek words that mean "all", "in", and "god" respectively.

Panentheism is the view that God is in all, and that God is developing and changing along with the world.  It is also called "process theology", or "bipolar theism", "organicism" since it views the universe as a gigantic organism, or even "neoclassical theism" since its idea of God is very different than the classical Christian concept. Typically, the average person that believes in the "God" of panentheism would probably call him "mother nature", possibly "the cosmos", or maybe even the "world spirit."

The god of panentheism is extremely different from the concept of God that we see from the Scriptures. If we were to make a comparison of the two, it would look something like this:

God of Panentheism:         The One God of Biblical Christianity:

God is working with the universe. God is sovereignly ruling over the universe.

God is dependent on the universe.         God is completely independent of the universe.

God is constantly changing.         God is unchanging in his essence.

God is growing more perfect.         God is absolutely and infinitely perfect.

God is finite.                 God is infinite.

It's obvious to see that panentheists believe that God is very limited and finite.  To them God is constantly changing, dependent on the universe, instead of being the Creator, think of him as only the director of world affairs who is trying to achieve a greater degree of perfection in his own essence. Most panentheists think of God's connection to the universe in the same way that a mind is related to human body. Just as the mind or soul is contained within the physical body, and also changes with it interacts to it, so God is actually "in the world/universe" and constantly changes with it, towards greater perfection.  This view of God was to a large degree endorsed by the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Plato, and in more recent times, by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.

Immediately, as you put Panentheism, to the "boomerang test", it fails miserably.  First of all, the concept of God that is taught in panentheism, is a self-contradictory being. To the panentheists God is actually "self-caused", which is impossible in logically incoherent. For something to be "self-caused" it would have to first exist, before it actually existed, in order to bring itself into existence. Obviously this type of thinking is very illogical, self-defeating, and impossible to reality.

Secondly, in panentheism and "process theology", God and the world are mutually dependent on each other, which is also self-defeating and impossible. Without God there would be no universe, but without the universe there would be no God.  It seems to be a "chicken and egg" problem of cosmic proportions!  Both of them would have to be infinite and eternal in the past, but the well-informed panentheist knows that neither one actually is.  One has to ask themselves if a God is worth worshiping, that is dependent upon the universe. Personally, it seems that a God who is dependent upon anything, couldn't truly be God in the first place!

Thirdly, to the panentheist or follower of "process theology", God is constantly changing with the universe.  This is totally opposed to the classical idea of God, which believes him to be absolutely unchanging and immutable in his nature. But also it goes against simple logic, since for change to be possible there needs to be an unchanging basis or standard to measure that change. But in the case of the God of panentheism, this rule or standard would be more ultimate than God himself!  If God needs to be the greatest and "most ultimate" being in the universe, this simply is not possible in panentheism.

Fourthly and finally, the God of panentheism is not perfect and seems to be finite, just like the rest of the physical universe.  Again, you have to ask yourself, how is it logically possible to call something "God" that is finite, limited, and striving towards perfection, just as his creatures are? Wouldn't this be a very good Biblical definition of "idolatry"? Worshiping a finite, limited, and imperfect creature in the place of the infinite, perfect, and unlimited Creator God seems obviously a lot like logical absurdity and spiritual idolatry.

As with atheism and pantheism, panentheism doesn't seem to have a spiritual or logical "leg to stand on" either!  Panentheism is full of intellectual contradictions, logical defeaters, and a bizarre concept of "God" that reduces him to little more that a super-creature.

In our next article, after already having examined Atheism, Pantheism, and Panentheism, we will continue to examine the remaining 4 concepts of God...hope you will join us!  You can watch our 3 part video lesson on worlviews here.

- Pastor J. 

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #2 - PANTHEISM

Worldview #2 - Pantheism:  

"God is All, and all is God!"

The word "pantheism" comes from two greek words, "pan" and "theos", meaning "all" and "God".  So, in a nutshell, we see that pantheism is the worldview that believes that "all is God, and God is All."  Pantheism includes the world religions of Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism, and the New Age Movement as well.  

Pantheism is also the popular religion of "Star Wars" and "Master Yoda", it forms the central beliefs of "Neo and Morpheus" in the box-office hit trilogy "Matrix", and has also been made populer in the animated TV series "Avatar" for teens, where "Aang" is seeking spiritual enlightenment in his quest to save the world.

A summary description of pantheism, would include the following beliefs:

- God is All, and all is God.

- All that exists in reality is one Mind, the All.

- The universe was created, not by, but rather "out of" the All itself.

- Reality is ultimately mental and spiritual, not physical.

- God is ultimately impersonal and unknowable.

- Human individuality and personal minds is only an illusion.

- Physical reality is an illusion that must must be abandoned.

- Logic and Morality are only illusions of human consciousness.

- Evil and suffering are human illusions that must be overcome.

- Our lives are an endless cycle of reincarnation and rebirth, until we attain enlightenment.

- There are many spiritual paths that lead to God, the All.

- The destiny of the mankind, is to become conscious that they are one with, and apart of the All. 

If you've ever come across a pantheist, you've more than likely heard them say things like:

"Everything is God, man!  We're all connected!  We're all One."

"You can't really know God.  He's waaaay beyond us."

"God is way beyond logic and morality.  They don't apply to Him."

"There's not just one way to God.  Everyone finds their own path."

"Free your mind, man.  Realize that it's all just an illusion."

Some famous representatives of the worldview of pantheism include, as I've already mentioned, the "Jedi Masters" from "Star Wars"; "Morpheus and Neo" from the "Matrix" trilogy; and "Aang" from the popular "Avatar" animated series.  But it also include real life cultural figures such as the Beatles, Deepak Chopra, Shirley Maclaine, the Dalai Lama from India, and the "gurus" of the Far Eastern religions and movies. 

Once again, if we examine the worldview of Pantheism, how does it stand up?  As we saw with the worldview of Atheism, there are also a large numbe of logical inconsistencies, self-contradiction, and just plain old absurdities within the worldview of Pantheism.

First of all, Pantheism is guilty of a major self-contradiction:  It tells me that what I experience through my physical senses just isn't real.  However, pantheists seem to constantly use their physical senses to find and share the truth of pantheism!  So, we see that right away, Pantheism is engaged in a major self-contradiction.

Secondly, Pantheism is guilty of another self-defeating idea: It claims that human being can "change" from a state of illusion to a state of "enlightenment", in which we realize that we are "one with the All."  However, this just won't work logically.  God, by definition, must be unchanging and eternal.  But Pantheism claims that if we change our perceptions, we can realize that realize that we are indeed the unchanging and eternal All!

Thirdly, Pantheism believes in something that is a blatant violation of a fundamental Law of Logic:  the Law of Non-Contradiction.  The Law of Non-Contradiction states that "A cannot be -A at the same time, and in the same way."  However, Pantheism seems to think this principle doesn't apply to reality.  It claims that all religions are equally true and valid, that "all roads lead to God", while these religions believe in fundamentally opposite ideas.  Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism all believe very different things about God, humans, sin, salvation, Heaven, and Hell, to name just a few.  Is it possible that all these religions could be true, even though they believe total opposites? No!  This is impossible, because it would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. 

Fourthly, Pantheism engages in the self-defeating practice of claiming that the "Laws of Logic" don't exist in reality, but actually uses the Laws, in order to deny them.  As you can plainly see, this is an intellectual blunder at the most basic level.  Since the Laws of Logic do exist and apply to all of reality, the pantheist cannot help but use them.  Pantheism uses logic to deny logic, by saying that the Law of Non-contradiction isn't real.  Problem is, he just used the Law of Non-Contradiction to say that! 

Fifthly and finally, Pantheism believes in different concepts of god at the same time.  For example, Hinduism alone believes in 300 million seperate "gods", while also claiming that "God is All, and all is God."  This really shouldn't surprise us, as we have already seen that self-contradictory beliefs aren't a problem for the pantheist.  However, it's just one more reason to remove this concept of God and reality from consideration.  Pantheism truly seems to be a system of belief that is shot through with a huge number of logical contradictions and self-defeating beliefs.  Not only is Pantheism false, it's impossible that it could ever logically be true!

It seems that the only place Pantheism is good for is "in a galaxy, far, far away" that is home to intellectual absurdities and logical impossibilities!

- Pastor J. 

Why Biomimicry Beats Engineering: The Case of Spider Silk

Michelle Oyen, a lecturer in the mechanics of biological materials at the University of Cambridge, was probably not intending to put in a plug for intelligent design when she wrote an article for The Conversation about spider silk. But she did.

At first, it appeared she just wanted to dispel an urban myth: "Spider silk is a wonder of nature, but it's not stronger than steel," was her headline. The imitation of spider silk by materials scientists is a classic example of biomimicry.

You must have heard that spider silk is stronger than steel. We all want to believe that there are wonder materials in nature that are far superior to human-made ones. But the problem with statements that sound too good to be true is that they usually are.

Spider silk is not stronger than steel. But that shouldn't stop us from studying it, or from thinking of it as a wonder material. (Emphasis added.)

From there, however, Oyen made a good case for silk as a competitor to steel. Its tensile strength is in the middle of steel's range, she pointed out, whereas its stiffness is much less. But it does outperform steel in one way that makes it attractive to scientists:

Where spider silk seems to beat steel by a large margin is its density, which is almost six times less. On a per-weight basis then, silk starts to look more interesting, with the ratio of strength to density exceeding that of steel.

So in terms of that ratio it's not really wrong to say spider silk is stronger than steel; in fact, further down she directly contradicts the headline: "Spider silk, then, is stronger than steel on a per weight basis," she clarifies.

Strong, flexible, low-density materials are highly attractive to materials engineers. Here's the lead-up to our favorite quote from her article:

Another reason why spider silk is enthuastically studied is because of our interest in mimicking nature through "biomimicry". The key difference between natural materials and man-made ones is not about so much about physical properties. It's about how they are made.

She proceeds to describe how silk is synthesized at room temperature and is environmentally friendly. The ingredients are abundant and readily available. The really choice remark comes as she compares human engineering with natural synthesis:

Continue Reading --->