Category Archives: Podcasts

Podcasts from William Lane Craig, William Dembski and Scott Klusendorf

William Lane Craig vs Victor Stenger

Debate report on the recent re-match debate at Oregon State University.

The MP3 file is here.

Craig argued his standard case, except he added the ontological argument and the contingency argument and removed the fine-tuning argument. Stenger defended the Hartle-Hawking cosmology from over 25 years ago, and made an argument that the universe we see does not fit with what Stenger expects that God ought to do, if he existed.

Their first debate is here. (MP3 file)

Bill also talked briefly about some other recent events, including his events at Harvard and MIT.

William Lane Craig vs Michael Tooley

Debate report on the recent re-match debate at the University of North Carolina – Charlotte.

The MP3 file is here.

This starts with a discussion of how Stenger responded to the ontological argument (blech!). Tooley offers a very strong statement of the evidential/probabilistic/inductive problem of evil. He was very well prepared for the debate – maybe too prepared. He didn’t really respond to Bill Craig’s arguments in the debate – he seemed to read FOUR prepared speeches! The debate included discussions about what counts as evil, and also whether we are in a position to know that God has no reason for permitting a particular instance of apparently gratuitous evil.

Their first debate is here. (Transcript)

I’ve actually met Michael Tooley at a conference, and he’s a really nice quiet guy – but he supports infanticide.

William Lane Craig in South Africa

Debate report on the 4-man debate on the resurrection of Jesus with two South African atheists who have started a kind of liberal “Jesus Seminar” in South Africa. The debate was about how people should understand the text of the New Testament. Bill debated with a partner – Mike Licona.

Bill and Mike defended two contentions: 1) The resurrection was a literal historical event. 2) There is no good reason to deny this historical event. Paul argued from 1 Cor 15, the early sermons in Acts, and empty tomb that is talked in the gospels. One of the professors argued the “history of religions” view – that the New Testament is fiction that borrows from pagan mythology. Craig also argued that the pre-supposition of naturalism is not warranted given the state of the evidence from natural theology (science, etc.).

The MP3 file is here.

Bill seems to be doing a lot of travel around the world lately, which is just awesome!

Stephen C. Meyer vs. Chris Mooney on the Michael Medved radio show

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (Ph.D from Cambridge) takes on Chris Mooney (B.A. in English) on the scientific method. This is commercial-free.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Topics:

  • science and public policy, e.g. – global warming as science
  • what is the definition of science?
  • can scientific ideas be questioned by those who disagree with the consensus?
  • should we allow scientists to debate scientific questions?
  • is name-calling an adequate response to intelligent design?
  • is it OK to be skeptical of scientific consensus?
  • can a person with a BA in English be a “science journalist”?
  • can a person with multiple degrees in science be a “scientific illiterate”?
  • is evolution testable? is it falsifiable? can it be criticized at all?
  • what about the Altenberg 16? are the “science-deniers” because they doubt Darwinism?
  • are scientific theories open to being revised based on new evidence?
  • what about the hundreds of credentialed scientists who dissent from evolution?
  • what about solar cycles – isn’t that the cause of global warming?
  • isn’t Al Gore making billions from the myth of global warming?
  • what about documentaries like “An Inconvenient Truth”? Is that science?
  • Should science journalists report both sides of scientific disputes?
  • Should public schools teach the controversy surrounding scientific issues?

My impression of Mooney is that he never took a single high school course in math or science. English? Is that even something that you can get a degree in? Seriously? English? Shouldn’t “science correspondents” have some qualifications

Brian Auten interviews Clay Jones on the problems of evil and suffering

More good stuff from Apologetics 315. (H/T Apologetics Junkie)

By the way, I notice that Brian is offering some FREE BOOKS to anyone who fills out a teeny, tiny little survey.

The MP3 file for the interview is here.

Topics:

  • about Clay Jones’ area of interest and publications
  • how did Clay become a Christian?
  • how did Clay get interested in the problem of evil?
  • what is the deductive (logical) problem of evil?
  • the popular version of it: why do bad things happen to good people?
  • what are some good books on the intellectual problem of evil?
  • what’s a good book for people who are struggling with suffering?
  • how can Christians defend against the problems of evil and suffering?
  • can God perform logical contradictions?
  • is God’s top priority for the world to make us have happy feelings?
  • what good reason is there for God to permit evil and suffering?
  • can God prohibit evil and still let us have free will?
  • can God prohibit evil and still prepare us for Heaven?
  • why do people even raise the objection from evil and suffering?
  • why do people find the slaughter of the Canaanites so troubling?
  • what kinds of sins were the Canaanites committing?
  • do people really understand how much God hates sin?
  • how much does suffering really matter on an eternal scale?
  • how can Christian apologists convince themselves that people really sin?
  • what is the “the banality of evil”? Are normal people capable of evil?

Two things that I got out of this lecture: 1) When people ask “why do bad things happen to good people?” you can ask them who is a good person? And ask them why they think that God would want “good people” to be happy in their own way instead of having a relationship with him. And 2) his advice that Christians should read about real evils like genocide and mass murder, to understand that ordinary people are capable of incredible cruelty, and capable of rationalizing it, too. It is very rare that anyone really stands up to their culture, like pro-lifers and pro-marriage people do today. It’s really hard to do! Especially when the bad guys make it harder to do the right thing.