Friday, August 28, 2009

Quote of the Day - The Limitations of Science

"What's life all about? This and others like it are questions that science cannot answer, and no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer." - Sir Peter Medawar (Nobel Prize for Medicine winner).

Reference: R. Stewart, The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett in Dialogue (London: Fortune Press, 2008), 33.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Is there Really No Evidence for the City of Jericho?

Jericho Unearthed

Many people have claimed for hundreds of years that there has been no evidence found of the City of Jericho and its destruction, as written about in the Book of Joshua. This has lead to a number of people dismissing the Bible, by saying it is inaccurate.

But in this 33 minute video made by Living Hope Ministries, they follow a number of the leading scholars and archaeologists into the land of Israel to see where the evidence actually points.

Watch video

Monday, August 24, 2009

The New Testament or the Qur'an? Debate

Dr. James White vs. Abdullah Kunde

This debate was held at the The University of Sydney on the 17th August 2009 on the topic of "What is the Guidance and Light for Mankind, the New Testament or the Qur'an?"

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Quote of the Day - Michael Ruse on the New Atheists


"Their [the new atheists] treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing." -- Michael Ruse (a skeptic himself)

Reference: Michael Ruse's article - Why I think the New Atheists are a Disaster.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Can Atheism Account for Morality?

Crime scene

Why is it wrong to steal or murder? Is it just because that is the cultural norm? Or is there actually an objective moral standard? Matt Slick from in this 5-minute video will address this topic and provide a convincing case for the existence of God from morality.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Converts Debate: Christianity vs. Islam


Dr. Nabeel Qureshi vs. Paul Williams

Both these gentlemen are converts from each other's religion. Nabeel Qureshi, once a professing Muslim, is arguing for the truth of Christianity. While Paul Williams, once a professing Christian, is debating for the validity of Islam.

Opening Statements

Rebuttals, Crossfire, and Conclusions

Monday, August 10, 2009

Do Improbable Events Necessitate Design?



I'm interested in how the teleological argument can escape the criticism of some who would argue that if an infinitesimally improbable event such as a finely-tuned Universe could warrant belief in a God, then how what about other incomprehensibly improbable events?

For instance, imagine a possible Universe that is much larger than our own, in which there are only two small space rocks in existence, but they are located on different edges of the Universe. The possibility of these two small rocks colliding is fantastically improbable, but if it did theoretically happen, would that warrant a supernatural explanation?


Dr. William Lane Craig responds:

If you read the work of Intelligent Design theorists, Ariel, you’ll find that none of them appeals to the simple high improbability of an event or thing as a basis for a design inference. Your own existence, for example, is due to the incredibly improbable union of a certain sperm and a certain egg, yet we would not infer on that basis that your conception was intelligently designed.

Four Aces

The dean of the contemporary Intelligent Design movement William Dembski argues that in addition to high improbability there also needs to be conformity to an independently given pattern. When these two elements are present, we have what Dembski calls “specified complexity,” which is the tip-off to intelligent design. Thus, for example, in a poker game any deal of cards is equally and highly improbable, but if you find that every time a certain player deals he gets all four aces, you can bet this is not the result of chance but of design.

Now in your example, if the two rocks collided, you would infer neither design nor chance as the best explanation, but the third alternative, physical necessity. Since gravitation acts over infinite distances, it is actually inevitable that those two masses will eventually collide. What would warrant a design inference would be if the rocks were to break into pieces which then came together to spell “Welcome to the Milky Way.”

To detect design look for high improbability conjoined with an independently given pattern.