Category Archives: News

Christian philosopher (Craig) vs atheist scientist (Atkins) debate: Does God Exist?

I found a video of a debate from the Reasonable Faith speaking tour in the UK, between Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and atheist chemist Dr. Peter Atkins.

Here is the video:

This is a must-see debate. It was extremely fun to watch, and I have a snarky summary of the opening speeches below.

Details:

On Wednesday 26th October 2011 William Lane Craig debated Peter Atkins on the topic: Does God Exist? This debate took place at the University of Manchester  as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. The debate was chaired by Christopher Whitehead, Head of Chemistry School at the University. Post-debate discussion was moderated by Peter S Williams, Philosopher in Residence at the Damaris Trust, UK.

Dr. William Lane Craig:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology(co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007).

Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laudemaster’s degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.

Dr. Peter Atkins:

Peter William Atkins (born 10 August 1940) is a British chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical ChemistryInorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of science books for the general public, including Atkins’ Molecules and Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science.

Atkins studied chemistry at the University of Leicester, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, and – in 1964 – a PhD for research into electron spin resonance spectroscopy, and other aspects of theoretical chemistry. Atkins then took a postdoctoral position at the UCLA as aHarkness Fellow of the Commonwealth fund. He returned to Oxford in 1965 as fellow and tutor of Lincoln College, and lecturer in physical chemistry (later, professor of physical chemistry).

I am happy when debates like this come out. I have friends who are Christians who doubt the importance of apologetics in evangelism, because they don’t think that apologists can prove anything or win arguments. I have friends who are skeptical of using arguments that assume a 14-billion year old universe, because they think that the Big Bang is compatible with atheism (!). I have friends who think that philosophical arguments have no persuasive force. I have friends who think that nothing can be proven from history, beyond a reasonable doubt. I have co-workers who ask me whether anyone wins these debates. I think that this debate answers all of those questions.

This debate clearly shows why Christians should not shy away from studying science, philosophy and history. We will not discover anything that harms Christian theism by thinking logically and by looking at the evidence. To the contrary, it is the atheist who makes war on the progress of science, and who is forced to resist the clear experimental evidence, and to resort to baseless speculations and blind faith. If you want to see a good debate with an intelligent atheist, I recommend watching the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican instead. But if you want to see a really, really overwhelming defeat for atheism, watch this debate. It is very clear at the end of this debate why Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig at Oxford.

SUMMARY OF THE OPENING SPEECHES

I only had time to summarize the first two speeches. Keep in mind that Dr. Craig always shines in his rebuttals, and this debate is no different. So you’ll want to watch those rebuttals. Dr. Atkins literally says in this debate in his first rebuttal “There was nothing here originally. There is nothing here now. But it is an interesting form of nothing which seems to be something.” And the audience laughs nervously. This debate is like that. You will see a clear winner and clear loser in this debate. This fight is decided by knockout.

William Lane Craig opening speech:

1. the origin of the universe
2. the moral argument
3. the resurrection of Jesus

Peter Atkins opening speech:

1. Dr. Craig is stupid, lazy and evil:
– Dr. Craig’s arguments are old: from the 11th century! Old arguments can’t be true
– Dr. Craig is just asserting that “God did it” because he is lazy
– Dr. Craig feels pressured to agree with the theistic majority
– Dr. Craig needs a psychological crutch to comfort him
– Dr. Craig is fearful of death
– Dr. Craig is just wishing for an eternal life of bliss
– Dr. Craig is driven by his heart, and not by his head

2. Origin of the universe:
– Maybe the universe is eternal and has no beginning – we don’t know
– Maybe mommy universes can give birth to daughter universes
– It is naive to think that a cause is needed to cause the creation of the universe from nothing
– Science is just about to show how it is possible that something appears out of nothing without cause
– Some scientists have already begun to speculate about about how something can come into being out of nothing
– Maybe nothing is not really nothing, but it is actually something
– It would be admitting defeat to say that God created the universe out of nothing

3. Fine-Tuning:
– It could be the case that the fundamental constants are not variable
– It could be the case that the fine-tuning of the cosmic constants is a happy accident
– It could be the case that there are billions of billions of unobservable universes that are not fine tuned
– It could be the case that the cosmic constants in these billions and billions of unobservable universes are all random so that some are fine-tuned
– Anyone who infers that an intelligence is the best explanation of a finely-tuned set of life-permitting cosmic constants is lazy

4. Purpose:
– Philosophers and theologians are stupid
– I don’t think that there is purpose in the universe
– I think that the universe is more grand if there is no purpose, so there is no purpose

5. Miracles:
– I don’t think that miracles happen
– The resurrection is a fabrication
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t exist
– It could be the case that Jesus wasn’t really crucified
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t  really die after being crucified
– It could be the case that the disciples stole his body
– It could be the case that the women went to the wrong hole in the ground
– the gospels are political propaganda written long after the events they are reporting on

6. Theodicy:
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing humans to perform actions that result in suffering
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing nature to cause suffering

7. Morality:
–  customs and conventions emerges arbitrarily in different times and places based on an awareness of the consequences of actions, as well as various anecdotes and experiences
–  these customs and conventions are decided based on the goal for survival, in much the same way as politeness and manners emerge for decorum and to avoid offense
– it is childish to presume that there is an umpire God who decides moral values and duties

8. Religious believers are stupid, lazy and evil:
– the notion of God has arisen because people are stupid and want to be comforted
– there are no arguments or evidences for belief in God
– people who believe in God do not think, but instead take refuge in incomprehensible nonsense

Democrat bill H.R. 0ne would undermine reliability and integrity of e1ections

The Heritage Foundation is my favorite think tank, and they have a summary of what the law would do:

The Issue

H.R. 0ne would federalize and micromanage the e1ection process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American e1ection process—which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom. It would implement nationwide the worst changes in e1ection rules that occurred during the 2020 e1ection and go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place. The bill would interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of v0ters, to ensure the accuracy of v0ter reg1stration rolls, to secure the fairness and integrity of e1ections, to participate and speak freely in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

What H.R. 0ne Would Do

  • Seize the authority of states to regulate v0ter reg1stration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic v0ter reg1stration, same-day reg1stration, online v0ter reg1stration, and no-fault absentee bal1oting.
  • Make it easier to commit fr4ud and promote chaos at the pol1s through same-day reg1stration, as e1ection officials would have no time to verify the accuracy of v0ter reg1stration information and the eligibility of an individual to v0te and could not anticipate the number of bal1ots and precinct workers that would be needed at specific pol1ing locations.
  • Degrade the accuracy of reg1stration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals (as opposed to “citizens”) from state and federal databases, such as state Departments of Motor Vehicles, corrections and welfare offices, and federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the Department of Labor, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services. This would register large numbers of ineligible v0ters, including aliens, and cause multiple or duplicate reg1strations of the same individuals and put federal agencies in charge of determining a person’s domicile for voting purposes (as well as that individual’s taxing state).
  • Constitute a recipe for massive v0ter reg1stration fr4ud by hackers and cyber criminals through online v0ter reg1stration that is not tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license. It would make it a criminal offense for a state official to reject a v0ter reg1stration application even when it is rejected “under color of law” because the official believes the individual is ineligible to v0te. It would also require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register; when combined with a ban on v0ter ID and restrictions on the ability to challenge the eligibility of a v0ter, this would effectively ensure that underage individuals could v0te with impunity.
  • Require states to count bal1ots cast by v0ters outside of their assigned precincts, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows e1ection officials to monitor v0tes, staff pol1ing places, provide enough bal1ots, and prevent e1ection fr4ud.
  • Mandate no-fault absentee bal1ots, which are the tool of choice for v0te thieves. It would ban witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee bal1ots; force states to accept absentee bal1ots received up to 10 days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day; and require states to allow v0te trafficking (v0te harvesting) so that any third parties—including campaign staffers and political consultants—can pick up and deliver absentee bal1ots.
  • Prevent e1ection officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of v0ters and removing ineligible v0ters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered v0ters; participating in state programs that compare v0ter reg1stration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever removing registrants due to a failure to v0te no matter how much time has elapsed. It also would substantially limit the public release of v0ter reg1stration information, making it almost impossible for nonpartisan organizations to verify the accuracy of reg1stration rolls, and prohibit states from using undeliverable e1ection mail as a basis for challenging a registrant’s eligibility.
  • Ban state v0ter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to v0te without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
  • Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech, including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 0ne would impose onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public; its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment—the modern equivalent of the type of disclosure requirements the U.S. Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) held violated associational rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
  • Require states to restore the ability of felons to v0te the moment they are out of prison regardless of uncompleted parole, probation, or restitution requirements. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may v0te again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
  • Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to v0ters. H.R. 0ne would make it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandate the inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that would take away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decisions about redistricting.
  • Authorize the Internal Revenue Service to engage in partisan activity. H.R. 0ne would permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations before granting tax-exempt status, thus enabling IRS officials to target organizations engaging in First Amendment activity with disfavored views.
  • Limit access to federal courts for anyone challenging H.R. 1. The bill would prohibit the filing of any lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 0ne anywhere except in the District Court for the District of Columbia and would allow the court to order all plaintiffs and intervenors, regardless of their number (such as all 50 states), “to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument,” severely limiting the legal representation and due process rights of challengers.

I left out some of them, but there’s enough there that should scare you. This is the kind of thing that happened in 1930s socialist Germany to make sure that the secular left could not be challenged.

Woman who sent her kid to Baltimore public schools shocked to find he is a failure

Fox Baltimore:

A shocking discovery out of a Baltimore City high school, where Project Baltimore has found hundreds of students are failing. It’s a school where a student who passed three classes in four years, ranks near the top half of his class with a 0.13 grade point average.

Tiffany France thought her son would receive his diploma this coming June. But after four years of high school, France just learned, her 17-year-old must start over. He’s been moved back to ninth grade.

“He’s stressed and I am too. I told him I’m probably going to start crying. I don’t know what to do for him,” France told Project Baltimore. “Why would he do three more years in school? He didn’t fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their job. They failed. They failed, that’s the problem here. They failed. They failed. He didn’t deserve that.”

[…]As we dig deeper into her son’s records, we can see in his first three years at Augusta Fells, he failed 22 classes and was late or absent 272 days. But in those three years, only one teacher requested a parent conference, which France says never happened. No one from the school told France her son was failing and not going to class.

“I feel like they never gave my son an opportunity, like if there was an issue with him, not advancing or not progressing, that they should have contacted me first, three years ago,” said France.

By the way, when I say that my older brother was destroyed by the public schools, this is what I’m talking about. He stayed home from school for an entire month with the “nanny” my parents hired, so that they could both go to work. And of course they had no idea, because my parents didn’t give a darn about us or our educations. This is the way it is for many children, including me. I had parents who had no idea what I was doing in school, and the first time they found out what I had done all year was report card day. That’s what you get when you trust the public schools. I understand that we were a poor, non-white immigrant family, so my parents had to both work, but that doesn’t excuse blindly trusting unionized public school teachers to do a good job. Parents have to monitor kids.

Cato Institute graphs education spending against test scores
Cato Institute graphs education spending against test scores

Advice for mothers

So, I don’t know much about this woman in the news story, but after reading her story, I have three pieces of advice for women in general that have nothing to do with her. And the younger women are when they get this advice, the better it will be for them.

This advice is specific to women who want their children to learn useful STEM skills, so that they can find a job that allows them to move out, get married, buy a home of their own, and retire.

  • Advice #1: Get married before you have children
  • Advice #2: Don’t vote for Democrat politicians
  • Advice #3: Don’t live in Democrat-run cities

That’s all. I’m pretty sure that if women followed these rules, then they wouldn’t get caught in situations where they are living in Democrat-run hell-holes and entrusting their fatherless kids to unionized public school teachers. Just. Don’t.