Some pro-legalized abortions take the view that technically speaking the unborn are parasites and that they are fair game for destruction because they are dependent on the mother and consume some of her resources. As weird as that argument is I actually like when they present it. I think that middle grounders will immediately realize what a horribly wrong attempt it is to de-humanize the unborn.
The response:
By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date.
That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.
Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.
I find it scary that people think of little babies as parasites in the first place!
This audio records a part of the Greer-Heard debate in 2007, between prominent atheist Daniel Dennett and lame theistic evolutionist Alister McGrath. Craig was one of the respondents, and this was the best part of the event. It is a little bit advanced, but I have found that if you listen to things like this over and over with your friends and family, and then try to explain it to non-Christians, you’ll get it.
By the way, this is mostly original material from Craig, dated 2007, and he delivers the speech perfectly, so it’s entertaining to listen to.
Craig presents three arguments for a Creator and Designer of the universe:
the contingency argument
the kalam cosmological argument
the teleological argument
He also discusses Dennett’s published responses to these arguments.
Dennett’s response to Craig’s paper
Here is my snarky paraphrase of Dennett’s reponse: (I haven’t been snarky all day!)
Craig’s three arguments are bulletproof, the premises are plausible, and grounded by the best cutting edge science we know today.
I cannot find anything wrong with his arguments right now, but maybe later when I go home it will come to me what’s wrong with them.
But atheism is true even if all the evidence is against it today. I know it’s true by my blind faith.
The world is so mysterious, and all the science of today will be overturned tomorrow so that atheism will be rational again. I have blind faith that this new evidence will be discovered any minute.
Just because the cause of the beginning of time is eternal and the cause of the beginning of space is non-physical, the cause doesn’t have to be God.
“Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7”. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)
The principle of triangulation might have brought the entire physical universe into being out of nothing.
I don’t understand anything about non-physical causation, even though I cannot even speak meaningful sentences unless I have a non-physical mind that is causing my body to emit the meaningful sentences in a non-determined manner.
Alexander Vilenkin is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.
Alan Guth is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.
This science stuff is so complicated to me – so Craig can’t be right about it even though he’s published about it and debated it all with the best atheists on the planet.
If God is outside of time, then this is just deism, not theism. (This part is correct, but Craig believes that God enters into time at the moment of creation – so that it is not a deistic God)
If deism is true, then I can still be an atheist, because a Creator and Designer of the universe is compatible with atheism.
I’m pretty sure that Craig doesn’t have any good arguments that can argue for Christianity – certainly not an historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus based on minimal facts, that he’s defended against the most prominent historians on the planet in public debates and in prestigous books and research journals.
I was in the second row at the Baylor Conference on intelligent design when Guth debated Craig on the origin of the universe. Guth admitted afterwards that the universe did require a cause.
I do not recommend purchasing the whole 2007 debate, because McGrath is a squish. You’re better off with the 2005 and 2008 sets. The 2006 one is OK, but not great. I don’t have the 2009 one yet, but it looks good.
A Turkish television show is offering contestants what it claims is the “biggest prize ever” — the chance for atheists to convert to one of the world’s major religions.
The show, called “Tovbekarlar Yarisiyor,” or “Penitents Compete,” features a Muslim imam, a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk attempting to persuade 10 atheists of the merits of their religion, according to CNN Turk.
…Ahmet Ozdemir, deputy director of Turkish channel Kanal T, which will air the show from September, said the program aimed to “turn disbelievers on to God.”
“People are free to believe anything they want. Our program does not have a say,” he said, according to Turkish newspaper Hurriyet.
But the Muslims don’t approve:
But the show has been condemned by Turkish religious leaders. The head of the country’s supreme council of religious affairs, Hamza Aktan, told CNN Turk that it was “disrespectful” to place different faiths in competition with each other and accused Kanal T of using religion to boost ratings.
Wow, the Muslim theologian doesn’t like to debate! I wonder why?
My take is that this is a very positive thing, and we need a lot more of it.
WINTERY KNIGHT 