He has a book that seems to be forthcoming. Here is a Talbot introductory lecture: He has a Q&A: A key clip: Notice, a paper, here. Excerpting Dr Clinton: Ostensibly, the reason for a ‘system’ of theology is that someone, or some group, has come to understand the teachings of the Bible and of their Read More…
The May 16 debate featured apologist Jonathan McLatchie vs “Cosmic Skeptic” Alex O’Connor, an influential New Atheist.
If it weren’t for God, you would not know anything at all. Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
James Tour is a chemist. Denis Lamoureux is an associate professor of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta
In a discussion with Solms, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor argues that it makes more sense to see God as a Person than as a personification of nature.
Incidentally, he notes a coalescence among some Christian thinkers today between Darwin and the much-ridiculed William Paley (19th century design proponent). Yes? That whirring sound you hear is Darwin spinning in his grave, reaching unthinkable speeds…
Contra Trendy Christians: It makes sense that all humans would descend from a single couple. If you had to account for something like, say, human consciousness, isn’t it easier to address that if we all belong to the same family of origin? Would you prefer to explain the development of human consciousness assuming that we come from multiple different ones? Darn good thing if someone can prove its true genetically.
God could have created countless universes on various principles for a variety of reasons. The key argument against the multiverse is that there is no evidence for it; it takes us outside the realm of observable science — a choice with consequences.
Come to think of it, we don’t hear much these days from the once ultra-fashionable New Atheist movement. Maybe it’s just hard to fight Something with Nothing.
Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.
Egnor: “The Thomistic understanding of evil is that it’s an absence of good. It’s not a thing that exist independently in itself. It’s a deficit of goodness. God’s creation necessarily fall short of goodness because if he created something perfectly good, He would just be creating himself. “
Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.
Egnor: Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.
In the face of a grab bag of ideas like creation by ETs or countless universes (some run by cats), why does the idea of a Creator seem far out?
In Egnor’s view, what atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.