To watch the whole video, see my playlist : Let’s Talk About Genesis : Ross vs Hovind < or click on picture (above)

To enjoy recent “Creation Research Evangelism” media : here
To enjoy recent “Reason to Believe” media : here

*)(**)(**)(*

Dear Readers,

While I am busy preparing the elementary lectures in Apologetics, I think this old lecture might be a good one to begin with.

Enjoy,

Apologetix

Information

William Lane Craig delivers the 2004 Templeton Foundation lecture at the University of Colorado, Boulder, laying out the case from contemporary cosmology for the beginning of the universe and its theological implications.

“Now, when I was just a little boy,
Standin to my daddys knee,
My poppa said, son, dont let the man get you”
( From: Born on the Bayou – Creedance Clear Water Revival )

“God’s Great Banana Skin” by Chris Rea…..

“Don’t you ever think no-ones better than you…
Keep your head down, don’t listen to what your ego will say…”

My subjects are Music, Art and Creative Writing and if I had to write a book about them, I would need to do my research. I am also a Theologian and could probably writer a good book about it. However, I am not a professional Biologist; though I do have a basic understanding of Biology, and if the trees and plants in The Company Gardens, behind St George’s Cathedral in Cape Town could talk, they would tell you a tale of how I instructed them in Matric Level Biology. (Which I did pass thanks to their patience lol)

Now Professor Dawkins is a professional Biologist and not a professional Theologian, or Philosopher, yet in his book ‘THE GOD DELUSION’ – he wrote a chapter about the various arguments for the existence of God and according to a professional who knows all about that; he did not do his homework and actually he had not even studied Professor Alvin Plantinga who is quite an authority. (and even I know that lol) Well let’s listen to Dr. William Laine Craig as he talks about this part of TGD….there is more, but I don’t want to spoil it for you…

Transcript ..

Yeah___rrr he does seem to think that although he himself admits that D.E. does’nt do anything to explain away the fine tuning. He thinks that that has to be yet be explained, that there really is no good explaination for that, and when I looked at his chapter in ‘The GOD delusion’ ; on the arguments for the existence of GOD, I was rather suprised Kevin by frankly how superficial, his handling of the arguments are. For example I think that he says nothing in response to the Lieten-Nietzschian argument from contingency: the argument that there needs to be and explanation to why something exists, rather than nothing. He has nothing about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument: the argument that there was a beginning of the Universe and therefore the Universe needs to have a transcendant cause. He talks about the design argument but he does’nt deal with the Fine Tuning, he only deals with the biological aspects of it, but has nothing to offer in terms of how you can explain the fine tuning of the Universe; of the Big Bang for intelligent life.
The Moral argument; here he’s just completely inconsistent, on the one hand if he grants the premise : that if GOD does not exist, there are no object morals and duties, he’s very clear that he thinks that morality is just basically a human illusion, but on the other hand, over and over again in the book makes moral judgements and affirms moral truths and therefore affirms the second premise in the Moral argument: that objective moral values exist. So he does’nt refute that argument, then finally the Ontological argument, oddly enough he spends the most time on that one. He he spends several pages on the Ontological argument, but if you look at it, all it is ridicule, he does’nt know anything about Alvin Plantinga’s defence of the Ontological Argument — he just mocks it and makes fun of it, and it’s very clear that he does’nt know the literature, that he’s not familiar with the argument.
So… I was very unimpressed. I mean quite honestly looking at his handeling of the arguments for the arguments for GOD’s existence.

Kevin:
I’m curious about the quote attributed to him (Prof. Dawkins) that is; ‘The study of Biology, the challenge there, is that you are examining systems that look as if they’re designed.’ and but…

Dr. William Laine Craig:
Right and he says, ‘that you need to constantly remind yourself that they’re not….

Kevin:
…why not say — because maybe they are ?

Dr. William Laine Craig:
Hahaha right

Kevin:
…I mean your Naturalism is’nt going to let you say I guess.
Dr Craig you’ve rebated the top Athiest thinkers in the world, on University Campus’ and at other events but what about a debate with Dawkins.

Dr. Craig:
Well, I’d welcome it, I would like to have a debate with Dawkins. In fact I recently had a UK (United Kingdom) debating and speaking tour that took me to quite a number of British Universities. It was set up by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in the UK and the board of directors chairman — Peter May — of InterVarsity wrote a very nice letter to Richard Dawkins at Oxford, in which he explained that William Laine Craig was coming to Great Britian on a university speaking and debating tour, that I was a Philosopher interested in Philosophy of Science and wanted to know if he would be interested in participating in debate with me on the existence of GOD. So it was’nt about Creation-Evolution, I was’nt presenting it as a religious person of theologian but as a Philosopher of Science — and the letter that Dawkins sent back to Peter May said, ‘I don’t know who William Laine Craig is if I were to debate a religious person he would have to be at least a Bishop, and while a debate with Craig might look good on Craig’s resume it would’nt look good on mine.’

And therefore he (Dawkins) declined to engage and so I did’nt have the chance to debate with Dawkins.

Kevin:
Daniel Dennett is another author, he’s got a best selling book called “Breaking the Spell”

Dr Craig:
Yes.

Kevin:
– the implications thereof. What is his take ?

Dr. Craig:
Well..uh…again Dennett is an interesting character, I was just in a conference with him in New Orleans, a couple of months ago, on Atheism and Theism and he was debating Alistair McGrath on this topic and then several of us were invited to give comments uh on the whole debate; I was one of them, Keith Parsons was another and I decided I would look at Dennet’s response to the typical arguments for the existence of GOD, since he does’nt think there are any good reasons. And again Kevin, I was shocked, this man is an emminent Philosopher at Topsis University — this is not some popularizer, and yet if you looked at his responses to the typical answers for the existence of GOD, George Smith does a better job — ((you know a popularizer)) — than what Dennett did.
Uh..for example his response to the Kalaam Cosmological argument, which says that whatever begins to exist has a cause — the Universe exists therefore the Universe has a cause — He agrees with the first premise: that anything begins to exist must have a cause that brings it into being. He agrees with the second premise, he thinks the Universe began to exist, and that the BIG BANG gives good evidence of that. So he agrees with the conclusion: the Universe has a cause, but here’s his answer, ‘The Universe has a cause….the Universe caused itself’…the Universe brought itself into being. He says, ‘It’s the ultimate bootstrapping trick’ — The Universe brought itself into existence.
And I pointed out to him, ‘You know that in order for the Universe to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist before existed; otherwise it’s not self-caused — it would be uncaused ( it would come out of nothing ) So his view would be — the Universe had to exist before it existed, which is a self-contradiction. It’s logically incoherent — and yet this was his response to the Cosmological argument

Kevin:
I imagine he’ll find another one, after that conference

Dr. Craig:
I think so…you know it was funny because after I’d presented my response there was an applause from the audience and then he was invited to give and impromtu reaction, and then he walked up to the platform and he …just stood there…. looking out at the audience for a minute..uh rrrr — a moment in silence and then he says, “Tha__t was a viruoso performance!”

Click to read all...

Big Bang – The Bible Taught It First!

By Hugh Ross and John Rea

‘Most science textbooks that address cosmology credit Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson with the discovery that the universe arose from a hot big bang creation event. While it is true that they were the first (1965) to detect the radiation left over from the creation event, they were not the first scientists to recognize that the universe expanded from an extremely hot and compact state. In 1946 George Gamow calculated that nothing less than the universe expanding from a near infinitely hot condition could account for the present abundance of elements. In 1929 observations made by Edwin Hubble established that the velocities of galaxies result from a general expansion of the universe. Beginning in 1925 Abbé Georges Lemaître, who was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest, was the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.’

(…read all…)

I’ve been seeing theme develop over the past couple of weeks.  One ministry on campus decided to do a series entitled, “The Seven Words you Can’t Say in Church.”  The first word was evolution.  Our church in DC, National Community Church is in the middle of a similar series, “The Elephant in the Church,” based on the aphorism “the elephant in the room.”  This week’s topic–”The Evolutionary Elephant.”  And this in the same week that we’ll be hosting a campus forum called “What Darwin Didn’t Know.”  

We’ve invited scientist, author and speaker, Dr Hugh Ross in to present new evidence on Darwinism (next February is Darwin’s 200th birthday) and look @ the science that points to the possibility of a creator.  If you’re in the AU area this Thursday around 8 pm, swing by the Kay Spiritual Life Center and check it out.  Seems like God wants us (or at least me) to learn something.