Friday, June 28, 2013

William Dembski Interviews




http://www.thebestschools.org/features/william-dembski-interview/





Update: All the following links of Collins' interview on Closer to Truth no longer work. 
One can access the videos at the Closer to Truth Website HERE
Most videos have shorter and longer versions.



Why is Science & Theology So Intriguing?
http://youtu.be/19gCDCLp_oI

What Can Science Say about God?
http://youtu.be/diab53tawI0

How is God Creator?
http://youtu.be/zi-yDRu7DvU

Fallacies in Proving God Exists?
http://youtu.be/IUZIK2fpjdU

What are the Things of Existence?
http://youtu.be/IxBG6ZHI3RA

How Should We Think About God's Existence?
http://youtu.be/blfiYv-mQQw

Did God Create Evil?
http://youtu.be/cCVYqg6TFmA

How Could God Interact with the World?
http://youtu.be/W5Cn8NQL0rM

Doe a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?
http://youtu.be/X1r0GB___V0

Arguing God's Existence?
http://youtu.be/evoEANDNOu0

Arguing God from Natural Theology?
http://youtu.be/1XOd79Gjesw

Arguing God from Design?
http://youtu.be/HEaOBs92N-o

Arguing God from Causation?
http://youtu.be/xAjQTtiQy0E

Arguing God from Teleology?
http://youtu.be/iGTOQ-fUNMY

Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
http://youtu.be/07CpM1qgaN0

Arguing God from Consciousness
http://youtu.be/5CohoKi5eoA

Is God Perfect? (Part 1 of 2)
http://youtu.be/v058xDqRd8o

Is God Perfect? (Part 2 of 2)
http://youtu.be/hLzmV5zt9Eg

Are Science and Religion at War?
http://youtu.be/kszeqO7XxVM

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

J.P. Moreland Interviews



J.P. Moreland Interviewed by Robert Lawrence Kuhn
on Closer To Truth

Update: All the following links of Moreland's interview on Closer to Truth no longer work. 
One can access the videos at the Closer to Truth Website HERE.
Most videos have shorter and longer versions.
 

Do Human Have Free Will?
http://youtu.be/zYLnNPYT5pk

Are There Things Not Material?
http://youtu.be/YJpNgxrOcpU

Is God A Person?
http://youtu.be/EYZbFxgbcWQ

Is God Perfect?
http://youtu.be/AtOL0P3Fz7Y
Arguing God From Consciousness?
http://youtu.be/rGFzeAtiE-Q

Arguing God From Moral Law?
http://youtu.be/k3PiOhDi8-k

Do Angels and Demons Exist?
http://youtu.be/uZstEjPTILM


Is the Soul Immortal?
http://youtu.be/w7nqB7SH-7s

Does A Soul Have An Afterlife?
http://youtu.be/drfKGqLY9Z8

Is There Life After Death?
http://youtu.be/OwB0Dtss8VU
Is There A Judgement?
http://youtu.be/bFjWHKCnNBs

Authentication And Conflict In Religious Belief?
http://youtu.be/icJK0sHVYKg

J.P. Moreland interviewed by Apologetics315
http://youtu.be/Ft4w_1cNwx8

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

A Rational, Pragmatic and Prudential Argument for Believing in God

[Note: This is NOT an argument for the existence of God, but for belief in God]

One of the most famous arguments against the existence of God is the one attributed first to Epicurus. Though, some that question to that attribution. It's the deductive version of the Problem of Evil (PoE).


    If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
    There is evil in the world.
    Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

Here's another version:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Philosophers today generally don't believe the argument is valid or sound. William Lane Craig has addressed this issue numerous times (for example, HERE and HERE)

With the above argument acknowledged, here's an attempt [weak as it might be] to argue for the rational, pragmatic and prudential obligation to believe in the existence of God.

#1 An all good, all wise, all powerful god who is the standard, exemplar and transcendent legislator of morality can be conceived (hereafter, "God" possessing such attributes).

#2 Such a God hasn't been proven conclusively to be impossible or to not exist using the a) deductive/logical argument for the non-existence of God based on the problem of evil [generally attributed to Epicurus], b) the inductive/empirical argument against God's existence based on gratuitous evil. c) [or] any other argument including the demonstration that the (various) concept(ions) of God is logically incoherent.

#3 Belief in such a God provides the best grounding for morality as well as deterrent for evil thus far offered.

#4 Such a God may a) provide rewards for moral rectitude/righteousness in a promised afterlife [as is suggested by various world religions], b) provide future compensation for evils experienced in this life to some or all, c) provide just/righteous punishment for all evils committed in an appropriate manner, and therefore provides motivation for living a virtuous (rather than a villainous) life.

#5 Monotheistic theism (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism) like that described above with the attributes of "God" (per #1) can pose the greatest existential threat in the afterlife when compared to other worldviews and philosophies of life.

#6 The a) public/civil and b) private good of people both in this life and a possible afterlife is, thus far, supremely (among other things) grounded in (as a foundation) both a private (i.e. individual) and corporate (i.e. public) belief in the existence of such a God.

#7 Such a God, being good and the foundation of morality would require us to believe in Him and live uprightly in keeping with that belief.

#8 Both in the present and past there have been numerous alleged testimonies of seemingly supernatural or paranormal events and/or experiences (sometimes made by credible witnesses) that call into question standard & normative materialism/naturalism, and all (or nearly all) of them can be explained within or be interpreted to be consist with monotheism. Of all the millions of alleged events/experiences it is not likely that absolutely all of them can be explained away in a naturalistic and materialistic way. These events and experiences happen in nearly all cultures, religions/worldviews/philosophies of life, intelligence levels, education levels, locations/geographies, ages (from very young children to the elderly), eras (from the distant past to the present) et cetera.

For example, according to Christianity reincarnation is false. Nevertheless, Christianity can provide possible accounts for how under hypnosis some people may be able to provide accurate information that would seem to confirm a prior past life since the information would have been nearly impossible to have been previously acquired by the subject through natural means. Taking Christianity as an example, from its perspective, such a person may be unwittingly being fed supernatural information by a demon who lived in the distant past and would therefore be privy to that item of information. Other examples of the supernatural and/or paranormal include claims of "ghosts", miracles, supernatural healing, angelic visitations, demonic possession, non-naturalistically derived information as in clairvoyance, UFOs, apparitions of fairies (or elves, jinn various cryptids etc.), psychic abilities, Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, Alien Abduction, psychokinesis and telekinesis, translocation/bilocation, psychometry, precognition et cetera.

Conclusion: Therefore people are pragmatically, rationally and prudentially [and possibly morally] obligated to believe in, or at least strive to believe in God's existence and to promote such a belief rather than oppose it in public.

This is similar to Kant's argument for the existence of God
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#BasArgExeKan)
[ ↑ recommended article ↑ ]

Many forms of moral argument for God's existence are variations on the following format.

Argument V:

    Morality is a rational enterprise.
    Morality would not be a rational enterprise if there were no moral order in the world.
    Only the existence of God traditionally conceived could support the hypothesis that there is a moral order in the world.
    Therefore, there is a God.

However, my conclusion is more modest because it doesn't conclude that therefore God must exist.

My argument is also similar to Pascal's Wager
See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article; as well as William Lane Craig on the Wager

Also notice the argument is formulated in such a way that one doesn't need to address (or is unnecessarily bogged down by):

- which monotheistic religion is true
 - the nature of the future punishment and whether it's eternal or temporal (e.g. annihilationism vs. traditionalism on the issue of hell)

- which sacred book(s) are divinely revealed
- scriptural inerrancy
- the numbers and percentages of the saved or lost in the afterlife (hence avoiding the issues of universalism, inclusivism, particularism, exclusivism etc.)
- issues for which there can be legitimate disagreement
- how to reconcile the various tensions involved in belief in the existence of God because it can appeal to mystery and/or human ignorance without violating any laws of logic (i.e. exploiting the fact that [this particular] God's existence [with these attributes] hasn't been proven logically, empirically or scientifically impossible).
-the problem of doxastic voluntarism.

How the premises are susceptible to refutation.

Regarding #1. Most people can conceive of such a God, the question is whether there's an underlying logical contradiction in such a conception of God. That leads us to #2.

Regarding #2. Most knowledgeable modern philosophers would agree with #2. So, the burden is on atheists to finally provide an argument that conclusively demonstrates why Epicurus' "Trilemma" is sound, or the inductive argument is coherent. So, it seems that ultimately the rationality, pragmatism,  and prudential wisdom of my argument will eventually butt heads with atheism's arguments from pragmatism, probability and emotion. All of which usually depends on attacking a specific conception of a God like the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament (whom Christians believe to be the same God), the Islamic God or other similar God with the "omni" attributes. Atheists seem to confuse their repugnance of the Christian, Jewish or Islamic conception of God with any possible God "omni"-attributed God. But that's a non-sequitur. By the way, I think one can defend the plausibility and justice of the Christian God. It's just not the intent of my argument to address it at the moment.

Regarding #3. To refute this argument, the atheist must prove an argument that shows that a version of atheism can provide as good as or better grounding for morality than does the conception of God provided in my argument. Or disprove that God could be the proper grounding of morality. Until they do so, this premise stands.

Regarding #4. It's a fact that various religions teach a future afterlife or rewards and punishments. That can't be denied by atheists. All atheists can do is argue against the promise of rewards or the fear of punishment (as a deterrent, cf. #3) as a legitimate motivation for living a righteous life and practicing restraint when it comes to evil impulses and desire. But that assumes that that's the only possible motivations. In the Christian tradition, there are other motivations like gratitude, thanks, trust in the wisdom of God's Commandments and His providential faithfulness to work all things for the good of those who love Him (cf. Rom. 8:28).

Regarding #5. The atheist would have to provide an alternative worldview that poses as much or greater existential threat than the various monotheisms. Also, the atheist can argue that the problem is that even if we accept #5, it doesn't tell us which of the various monotheistic religions is the true religion. They would point out that one may choose the wrong monotheistic religion. However, through inductive and deductive argumentation, one can still nevertheless sort out which monotheism is most probably true (of those one has noetic access to and can examine) by figuring out which comports most with all that we do know of the external world, along with logical consistency and coherency.

Regarding #6. Like #3, the atheist would have to make a case for a version of atheism that can provide as good as or better foundation upon which the good of humanity can be grounded. Nevertheless, even if such a thing could be provided, the remainder of my argument wouldn't be affected. That is, my argument could still work if premise #6 were removed. Nevertheless, even many atheists have argued that without God nihilism necessarily follows (including moral/ethical nihilism).

Regarding #7. This might be the Achilles' Heel of the argument. Atheists could argue that there is no good reason for why God would expect and require us to believe in Him. Moreover, that there are good reasons for why God, if He existed, doesn't have a right to expect or require us to believe in Him (viz. because He hasn't provided sufficient evidence for His existence). Or that nothing in the conception of God presented would logically entail that God would require us to believe in Him. That is, God could still expect us to live righteously and will reward/punish us even if we didn't believe in Him while on earth. Though, I think it makes some intuitive sense that God would have such an expectation. Especially if, God really were the foundation of morality, and God knowing we're rational creatures who would (or at least rationally should) conclude that He is that foundation (even if we didn't have access to a divine revelation that explained that).

Regarding the conclusion. Admittedly, this an inductive argument (that addresses probability) not a deductive argument (with certainty as the goal). Nor does the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. But I think the gist of the argument has intuitive force. It's strength is in the fact that such a God can be conceived even if we don't know all the details. In which case, we're all, in some sense, obligated to (at the very least strive to) believe in such a God. And if we don't, we're going against our own reason, self-interest, and admitted ignorance and inability to provide conclusive proof as to why God cannot exist.

Regarding the issue doxastic voluntarism, it maybe true that one cannot choose to believe something (especially if they believe there are defeaters to the belief). However, IF it's the case there is no conclusive disproof of God, and if one is persuaded by the argument that belief in God (or at least striving to; or having a willingness to believe) is rational, practical and prudential; then that might lead to the person eventually coming to believe in God (for other rational and/or psychological reasons).

For example, entertaining a belief in a multiverse even though there's no positive evidence for it can lead people to hope for its existence. Even to actually believe in it's likelihood (as some physicists do). Another example. A person might be inclined to believe that internet dating cannot lead to a healthy long lasting marriage. But, if the person were willing to entertain the possibility, he/she might take steps to "try it out" and thereby actually finding such a relationship. Similarly, God is not vending machine one can "test" by placing a coin in (analogous to prayer or obedience) to see if one will get what one expects.

Rather, God is a person and the Bible teaches that if we would draw near to God, God will draw near to us. And just like any other relationship, it takes time to cultivate. Just as one cannot makes demands in a relationship with a King, President, Emperor, so one cannot make demands on God. Nevertheless, God does condescend to have a relationship with us if we would go about it by faith. As the Bible says, "But without faith, it is impossible to please God. Because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who diligently/earnestly seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).

Monday, June 24, 2013

What we still don't know with Martin Rees



 

This is not a Christian video, but it does show how fine-tuned the universe is. Here's one quote:

"The cosmological constant needs to be set to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion" [found at 18 minutes into the video]


See also the videos here:
The Big Bang, Multiverses, and the Anthropic Principle Discussed by William Lane Craig misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-big-bang-multiverses-and-anthropic.html

Alvin Plantinga Interviews



Arguing God's Existence
https://youtu.be/eeX6Lhb0_6A




Can Many Religions All Be True?



Is the Soul Immortal?



Is God Good?



Reasons for God



Interviewed by Apologetics315


World Famous Philosopher Interviewed About Broken AC Unit
Without Reporters Knowing Who He Is

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Robin Collins Interviews


Here are some links to great audio/video materials by Robin Collins. While I agree with much of what Collins says, there are some things I either don't agree with, or positively disagree with (e.g. his apparent open theism, inclusivism, and theology of theosis).


Robin Collins interviewed by Robert Lawrence Kuhn on Closer to Truth

Update: All the following links of Collins' interview on Closer to Truth no longer work. 
One can access the videos at the Closer to Truth Website HERE.
Most videos have shorter and longer versions.


Is God the Cause of a Fine-Tuned Universe?
http://youtu.be/Ll8xam_WvT4

Would Multiple Universes Undermine God?
Part 1. http://youtu.be/u9VE8dF6zDw
Part 2. http://youtu.be/QGEPGF-09Wc

Debating God's Existence?
Part 1. http://youtu.be/rNN2rwqI7g0
Part 2. http://youtu.be/04nrZI1NujQ

What does a Fine-Tuned Universe Mean?
Part 1. http://youtu.be/plpCfXKKYLE
Part 2. http://youtu.be/3nl1rAEKMUA

A New Heaven & a New Earth?
http://youtu.be/7FMu3XCw9VE

What is the Far Future of Intelligence in the Universe?
http://youtu.be/5gUqo2bMDY4

Why do We Search for Intelligent Aliens?
http://youtu.be/e0LK4kvj6ZY

Does Evil Refute God's Existence?
http://youtu.be/9nZ7cGv_38c

Did God Create Evil?
http://youtu.be/Ccb7F2nXW-0

Atheism's Best Arguments?
http://youtu.be/RwB86mnpuEQ

Authentication and Conflict in Religious Belief?
http://youtu.be/quewTFcE6N4

Imagining Immortality and Eternal Life
http://youtu.be/dexAgNnWt5w

The videos at Closer To Truth with a bio of Robin Collins
http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Robin-Collins/23


********************

 Robin Collins interviewed at Apologetics315
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/04/philosopher-interview-robin-collins.html

********************


https://youtu.be/Gj_fLi_K7jA
 Is [It] True? Fine-Tuning the Universe - Robin Collins at Pepperdine





 
Cosmology and Fine Tuning: Three Approaches






Scientific Teleological Arguement for Likeliness of Theism





"God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Discovery"
http://youtu.be/A1BxcW1etXM






 

Friday, June 21, 2013

Addressing the Da Vinci Code Theory



Recommended Books


Breaking the Da Vinci Code by Darrell L. Bock

The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci by Ben Witherington III

Cracking Da Vinci's Code: You've Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts by James Garlow & Peter Jones

Robert M. Price is one of the most radical Bible critics in the world. He's even more radical than the (disbanded) majority of the "Jesus Seminar". I don't recommend Robert M. Price's book on the Da Vinci Code, but people should note that he too denies the truth of the Da Vinci Code theory propounded by Dan Brown's book. His book is titled, The Da Vinci Fraud: Why the Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction.

It should also say something that the most famous Bible critic and agnostic Bart Ehrman also rejects the Da Vinci Code theory (see the video below).



Videos/Audios by Christians

Breaking the Da Vinci Code by Dr. Darrell Bock
http://www.biblicaltraining.org/seminar/breaking-da-vinci-code/bock


The Da Vinci Code: History or Hoax by Ward Gasque President
http://youtu.be/s37yJ_nB7Nc


Various YouTube lectures by Dr. Michael Heiser on topics related to the Da Vinci Code have been collected by this website link:
http://www.alienresistance.org/davinci-code-fiction-fact-history-early-church-gnosticism/


***************
Various Lectures by Phil Fernandes on the Da Vinci Code

 Debunking the DaVinci Code - Dr. Phil Fernandes
http://youtu.be/mt2H-b7wqUg

Refuting the DaVinci Code - Dr. Phil Fernandes
http://youtu.be/eYineqiyBtU

Refuting the Da Vinci Code - Dr. Phil Fernandes
Part ONE, Part TWO, Part THREE, Part FOUR, Part FIVE, Part SIX, Part SEVEN (?)



Videos/Audios by Non-Christians 
Obviously, I wouldn't agree with all the statements in the following videos

Bart Ehrman refutes "facts" in The Da Vinci Code
http://youtu.be/0JFh_XoXbTY

The Discovery Channel on the Da Vinci Code
http://youtu.be/2oi5hdM6W8o



Even More Audio by various Evangelical and Catholic speakers
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/audio.htm#DaVinciCode



More Christian Movies

Abraham (with Richard Harris)

I saw "Abraham" around 15 years ago. I loved it even though the pace was slow because of how Abraham is portrayed as being so stubborn and persistent in his belief in God's faithfulness despite so many obstacles, external objections and peer pressure. Something I could related to when I first watched the movie. For some people this movie might be considered boring because slow and slow because boring, but totally disagree. It seems to me that it was perfectly paced. But that might be because of what I brought to the movie theologically and existentially.


David and Goliath (with Orson Welles)



The Ten Commandments (with Charlton Heston) 
Part ONE     http://youtu.be/-UIS2AYVBqY 
Part TWO     http://youtu.be/cx78vePP9bI
This isn't DVD quality, and there are non-English subtitles. Nevertheless, it's one of the greatest Christian movies ever made and it's on YouTube.


The Robe

Martin Luther: Heretic (movie)


Here's a link to the 1983 Luther movie with Jonathan Pryce as Luther
http://youtu.be/cuT-SDDdRVU

This movie is recommended by some of the associates of Dr. James White and the folks at AOmin.org. If I recall correctly, even Dr. White recommended it.

A DVD copy of the movie is also being given away for free by NiceneCouncil.com, but you have to pay for shipping and handling ($5.95 US, or  $12 International).



Here's a link to the 1953 Luther movie with Niall MacGinnis as Luther



The 2003 Luther movie with Joseph Fiennes as Luther is so recent most people will be able to rent the movie or borrow it from a local library.




I especially like the 1974 Luther movie with Stacey Keach as Luther. It portrays Luther warts and all. It realistically shows both the good and bad both in Luther and in what resulted from his reformation. As a former Roman Catholic myself I can testify to how Keach masterfully portrays how a Catholic can experience spiritual vertigo when he takes his faith seriously. Unfortunately this version with Keach isn't freely online. Though, some local libraries have it.

The text of the original play by John Osborne on which the movie was based can be accessed HERE

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism

[[UPDATE: see also my blog dedicated to defending the doctrine of the Trinity: Trinity Notes]]


In addition to my own Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity, the following are resources that I recommend to help argue for and demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity. But before I list those resources and links, here are some surprising quotes:


Christian (and Jewish Messianic Believer in Jesus) Dr. Michael L. Brown, wrote

Interestingly, Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary), came to similar conclusions in his recent book, The Bodies of God. He wrote: “Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. . . . No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions [referring to God appearing in bodily form in the Tanakh], whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores the triune God.”
So, it appears that there are Jewish scholars who do not believe in Yeshua who can see what my dear friend Rabbi Blumenthal cannot. Let’s continue to pray for Rabbi Blumenthal!

In a book review of Dr. Sommer's book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel 
someone named J. Todd Hibbard, (University of Tennessee at Chattanooga) acknowledges that Dr. Sommer believes the Christian conception of the Trinity is not incompatible with various traditions within Judaism. It doesn't matter if Hibbard is a Christian or not. I quote him only to further corroborate Dr. Brown's interpretation of Dr. Sommer.

The final chapter finds Sommer donning his theologian hat in order to answer the question, “What do the Hebrew Bible's fluidity traditions teach a modern religious Jew?” (p. 126). After noting that the antifluidity traditions in P and D dominate the final form of the Hebrew Bible, he notes that fluidity traditions found elsewhere (notably in JE) are still present. He briefly explores the development of these traditions in the postbiblical rabbinic literature, the kabbalah and early Christianity. With respect to the latter, Sommer insists that core Christian assertions—the trinity and incarnation—are not theologically impermissible within the world of Judaism, but rather are faithful to the fluidity model of divinity found in ancient Israel. For modern Jews, Sommer demonstrates how biblical notions of fluidity and antifluidity pose challenges for both liberal and conservative Jews, though not in the same way. He concludes by insisting that, contrary to customary positions, it is the fluidity model that offers the strongest statement of monotheism consistent with the personhood of God.


In another book review, Esther J Hamori says the following:


In chapter 6, Sommer traces the fluidity model into later Judaism and Christianity. He points to the continuation of these concepts—the fluidity of the divine self and multiplicity of embodiment, the rejection of these notions, and various implications for sacred space—in rabbinic literature and kabbalah, addressing what this all might mean for those reading the Hebrew Bible as scripture today. He then frames the concept of incarnation in the New Testament in terms of the fluidity model and discusses the impact this has had on later Christianity. It is fascinating to see some of this unfold, for instance, as he traces the ways in which Protestantism and Catholicism prioritize different  voices among the fluidity and antifluidity traditions. One of his laudable goals here is to demonstrate ways in which much of Christian theology is not so foreign to Judaism. He concludes, “No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scriptures contains the fluidity traditions, whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores a triune God” (135). The similarities of the Christian concept of the simultaneous presence of God in heaven and God on earth to the older fluidity model are striking, and it will be fruitful to consider Christian theology in light of this. At the same time, there are also important differences between these types of embodiment, and at a certain point the similarity may be a bit overdrawn. Sommer’s view does not take into account the difference between theophany and incarnation, between temporary manifestation and full human identity and life, as claimed in Christian theology. Perhaps more significantly, while the concept of the Trinity may be seen to reflect the multiplicity of embodiment as in the older fluidity traditions, it does not seem particularly fluid. Finally, Sommer concludes that this fluidity in Judaism and Christianity allows God both immanence and transcendence, and that it shows that the divine is not bound to any one place. (Or, as I have argued in regard to some biblical texts, even the embodiment of God demonstrates divine freedom, rather than limitation.)


Some articles from the Jews for Jesus website

Jewishness and the Trinity 
www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish

The Trinity: Questions and Answers
www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/theology/the-trinity-questions-and-answers

Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/18_02/01

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspecctive
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v10-n08/trinity

******************************************************

The Trinity in the Old Testament VIDEO (Highly RECOMMENDED introductory video)
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-trinity-in-old-testament.html


“Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Honest (and Orthodox) Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible” by Dr. Michael Heiser
http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/heiser_monotheism-polytheism-monolatry-or-henotheism.pdf


The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John by Daniel Boyarin
http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/Boyarin Memra.pdf
OR HERE http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/108%20Gospel%20of%20the%20Memra%20%282001%29.pdf


A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White
http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html


The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
http://bib.irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity

Institute for Religious Research webpage on the Trinity
https://bib.irr.org/category/trinity

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity by Wayne Grudem (chapter 18 of his book Systematic Theology)
http://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/trinity-wayne-grudem


Answering-Islam.org's main webpage in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity
http://www.answering-islam.org/Trinity/index.html


Romans 9:5 Research By Gary F. Zeolla
Part ONE,  Part TWO

Monergism.com has a lot of articles in defense of the Trinity. They break down the topic into the following categories:
Biblical Evidence for the Trinity;
Contemporary Essays & Articles;
Classic Essays & Articles;
Historic and Confessional References;
Multimedia

Here's a link to their main page on the Trinity
http://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity


Louis Berkhof on the Holy Trinity (from his acclaimed Systematic Theology)
http://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/holy-trinity/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof
or http://www.monergism.com/holy-trinity-louis-berkhof


Sam Shamoun and David Wood are Christian apologists who deal with Islam. Because of Islam's denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, they often have to defend the doctrine against Islamic objections. Here are links to some of these works. Scroll down to their articles on the Trinity and Christology:


-Sam Shamoun also sometimes posts guest blogs at this website:
https://badmanna.wordpress.com/about/

-Answering Muslims website where David Wood blogs on Islamic issues.

Articles by Anthony Rogers at Answering Muslims website


Jesus As God by Murray J. Harris


Department of Christian Defense
This website has a lot of great articles in defense of the Trinity and related doctrines



Some Blog Resources 

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
http://rdtwot.wordpress.com
This is Nick Norelli's website where he often discusses the doctrine of the Trinity. He's obsessed (in a good way) with the doctrine of the Trinity. His website is recommended on the topic of the Trinity by Steve Hays (of Triablogue fame). Nick reads and addresses authors who delve into the deeper theological, philosophical, historical, and biblical issues regarding the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nick Norelli's:
1. Recommended Reading (includes book reviews)
2. Trinitarian Resources


Triablogue
I also recommend Steve Hays blogs on the doctrine of the Trinity at Triablogue. Especially those where he interacts with Dale Tuggy and/or Drake Shelton. Here are instructions on how to do a comprehensive search at Triablogue.blogspot.com. Go to www.google.com/advanced_search and type in "triablogue.blogspot.com" in the "site or domain:" field. Do NOT type "www" (as in:  "www.triablogue.blogspot.com"). Then type in whatever keywords interest you in one of the first three fields. For example words like "Dale Tuggy"; "Drake Shelton"; "trinitarianism"; "trinity"; "arian"; "arianism"; "modalism"; "sabellianism" et cetera.


Jesus is Jehovah (blog)
http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/
This is an interesting blog that has some things that are useful in defense of the full deity of Jesus (and by extension the doctrine of the Trinity).


In my blog on the Messiahship of Jesus, there are various resources that either directly or indirectly address or make a defense for the full deity of Jesus and of a plurality of persons in the Godhead (or specifically the doctrine of the Trinity). The blog on the Messiahship of Jesus can be accessed at the link HERE (http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-do-you-think-about-messiah.html)


Two blogs where I debated the doctrine of the Trinity
F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner



Some Classic Online Books in Defense of the Trinity

Some of the following books are somewhat out-dated because they were written prior to modern discoveries or modern arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. Also, sometimes they make a case that hinges on textual variants that they either weren't aware of, or for some reason didn't address. Or that modern scholarship has shown to be inauthentic. Nevertheless, the overall arguments made are useful and show that the doctrine of the Trinity is well grounded in both the Old and New Testament.


Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity by John Owen
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/trinity


The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill
http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2011/12/trinity-stated-and-vindicated.html


A Body of Doctrinal Divinity by John Gill [ see especially chapters 26-31]
 http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#2


The Trinity by Edward Henry Bickersteth
https://ia600303.us.archive.org/6/items/TheTrinityByEHBickersteth/TheTrinity-E.hBickersteth.pdf
or
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/the_trinity.pdf
or
http://sophiamission.org/files/documents/pdf/free_theology_books/T/the_trinity_e_h_bickersteth.pdf

The following book might be the same book as above but with a different (original?) title. ↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓

The Rock of Ages; or, Scripture Testimony to the One Eternal Godhead or The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost by Edward Henry Bickersteth
http://books.google.com/books?id=YKIOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
or

http://books.google.com/books?id=U3MYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
or
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BookList/RockofAgesbyEdwardHenryBickersteth1871/tabid/286/Default.aspx (digital version)
 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Unfortunately, this digital version alters the text so that where the original had "Jehovah" it has "Lord." Thus removing instances when Bickersteth specifically intends refer to the tetragrammaton. At the very least they should have replaced it with "LORD" (all caps) or "YHWH" or "Yahweh." Though I personally prefer, but don't insist on, "Jehovah."



Doctrine of the Trinity: The Biblical Evidence by Richard N. Davies
http://archive.org/details/doctrineoftrinit00davi
or
http://yoel.info/davies.pdf

The following two books by Elmer L. Towns weren't written to prove the Divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, these books provide additional supplementary evidence by collecting the names, titles and descriptions of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns [ over 700 names]
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The_Names_Of_Jesus%5BETowns%5D.pdf

The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The_Names_Of_Jesus%5BETowns%5D.pdf



Recommended books for Purchase

Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by  Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)


The Forgotten Trinity by James White (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED introduction)

The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship by Robert Letham
The following is what Nick Norelli says about Letham's book, "This book is as comprehensive as you can get in 500 pages. Letham covers just about everything you can hope for in his examination of the Trinity. From the Scriptures to the Church fathers, to modern theologians, almost no stone is left unturned. Hands down, my favorite book on the subject. Again, this is not an introductory book, it assumes some prior acquaintance with the doctrine." Wow, what and endorsement. I haven't read this book, but guess I should.

Any of Larry Hurtado's books on Christology are recommended. For example:
-Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity;
-How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus;
-One God, One Lord, New Edition: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism

The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert A. Morey


Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes


God In Three Persons by E. Calvin Beisner

"Jesus Only" Churches by E. Calvin Beisner [ addresses Modalism/Modalistic Monarchianism/Oneness theology]


The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the mysteries of the hidden Messiah by Michael L. Brown (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED; along with his 5 volume "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus")


Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris


Nick Norelli's book recommendations & book reviews can be accessed at this link  HERE (scroll down for the reviews)



Videos/Audios

The Trinity in the Old Testament VIDEO (Highly RECOMMENDED introductory video)
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-trinity-in-old-testament.html


Can Anyone See God? by Michael L. Brown (brief video) vimeo.com/16321308 


The Mystery of the Trinity by R. C. Sproul (6 videos) 
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-mystery-of-trinity-by-r-c-sproul.html


Devotion to Jesus: The Divinity of Christ in Earliest Christianity with Dr. Larry Hurtado (part 1 of 8 videos) www.wesleyministrynetwork.com/Video_dj.asp
(Only Part 1 is Freely Available. Access to all is $150.00)

Dr. Michael Heiser Videos on the Trinity including:
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-jewish-trinity-how-old-testament.html


Did Paul think Jesus was God? (video)


Wayne Grudem's Lectures on the Trinity [based on his book Systematic Theology] (audio mp3s)
Part ONE, Part TWO, Part THREE, Part FOUR


Simon Gathercole Lectures on the Preexistence of Christ in the Synoptics
The three mp3 files can be downloaded HERE or HERE. He gives special emphasis on Jesus' oft repeated statement "I have come."

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
(My blog article that's partly based on Gathercole's lecture above)


DEBATES

Deity of the Messiah Debate between Unitarians Buzzard/Goode vs. Trinitarians White/Brown
PART 1 http://youtu.be/Yn-grOfPDi0
PART 2 http://youtu.be/M38rQXLq29g


Dr. James White vs. Sir Anthony Buzzard on the topic of the Trinity on Justin Brierley's radio show Unbelievable http://youtu.be/SY7_EtcIeOQ

Trinity vs. Oneness White vs. Sabin
Part ONE; Part TWO

Oneness vs Trinity: David Bernard vs James White
Part ONE; Part TWO; Part THREE; Part FOUR


Here's a link to my blog Resources Responding to Bart Ehrman that includes (among other things) links to book reviews of Ehrman's book "How Jesus Became God"


[My own] Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity


UPDATE:    Here's the link to my new blog Trinity Notes 


The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

[[UPDATE: see also my blog dedicated to defending the doctrine of the Trinity: Trinity Notes]]


At one his websites (Two Powers in Heaven) Dr. Michael Heiser continues to argue rabbinical scholar Alan Segal's claim (nearly 30 years ago) that up until the 2nd century C.E., it was permissible in Judaism to believe in the concept of there being "two powers" in heaven without being heretical or pagan or polytheistic. It was a sort of Jewish Binitarianism. In the video lectures, Dr. Heiser makes his BIBICAL case. Then using ancient Jewish Binitarianism he bridges the gap from (strict/monistic) Monotheism to Trinitarianism.

The late Alan Segal's book is titled, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Though Segal regarded the "two powers" view as heretical, he adamantly argued that as a matter of historical fact that many Jews did believe such a doctrine in times past and that it was considered permissible back then.


The Jewish Trinity
(3 1/2 hour lecture)


More Videos with Michael Heiser:

Holy Trinity - Dr. Michael Heiser
http://youtu.be/P9tFm7qKrgk

Michael S Heiser - The Trinity
http://youtu.be/3yeKhMnfOTE

Michael Heiser - Two Powers of the Godhead - May 4, 2013
http://youtu.be/CUkhWBKCuXc

Dr. Michael Heiser - Is the Trinity found in the Old Testament?
http://youtu.be/bNF-vFBVtig

The Jewish Trinity
PART ONE;     PART TWO;     PART THREE;     PART FOUR

Jesus and the Old Testament
http://youtu.be/1jarTP3pl5k

The Belief in Jesus as God before Nicea and the Exalted Christ of Gnosticism P5/8
http://youtu.be/z7Ry_uEMG-k

What Really Happened at Nicea? P6/8 - Dr. Michael Heiser
http://youtu.be/SWlAJ0KMrFQ

The Trinity- Michael Heiser
http://youtu.be/WK-GLnNF_-g

Jesus Christ and the Old Testament: Jesus Christ as Co-Creator
http://youtu.be/BComTeFErQ4

Jesus in the Old Testament
https://youtu.be/Fdw7cn-euow

Jewish Trinity : The Second Power
http://youtu.be/LPQSaeuLTDI

Holy Trinity (Lecture 2)
http://youtu.be/_43nXfq7d38

Jewish Trinity - John 10 and Psalms 82
http://youtu.be/YsQLYBUmDV4

Jewish Trinity: Jewish Godhead
http://youtu.be/dFsEgQCQQ9w

Holy Trinity
http://youtu.be/wMdxqoEsg0k

Council of Nicea
http://youtu.be/tncKvhByPus

The Divine Council and Jewish Binitarianism
Part ONE
Part TWO
Part THREE
Part FOUR
Part FIVE
Part SIX
Part SEVEN
Part EIGHT



See also his paper: “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Honest (and Orthodox) Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible” by Dr. Michael Heiser


Christian and Jewish Messianic Believer in Jesus, Dr. Michael L. Brown, wrote

Interestingly, Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary), came to similar conclusions in his recent book, The Bodies of God. He wrote: “Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. . . . No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions [referring to God appearing in bodily form in the Tanakh], whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores the triune God.”
So, it appears that there are Jewish scholars who do not believe in Yeshua who can see what my dear friend Rabbi Blumenthal cannot. Let’s continue to pray for Rabbi Blumenthal!

In a book review of Dr. Sommer's book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel 
someone named J. Todd Hibbard, (University of Tennessee at Chattanooga) acknowledges that Dr. Sommer believes the Christian conception of the Trinity is not incompatible with various traditions within Judaism. It doesn't matter if Hibbard is a Christian or not. I quote him only to further corroborate Dr. Brown's interpretation of Dr. Sommer.

The final chapter finds Sommer donning his theologian hat in order to answer the question, “What do the Hebrew Bible's fluidity traditions teach a modern religious Jew?” (p. 126). After noting that the antifluidity traditions in P and D dominate the final form of the Hebrew Bible, he notes that fluidity traditions found elsewhere (notably in JE) are still present. He briefly explores the development of these traditions in the postbiblical rabbinic literature, the kabbalah and early Christianity. With respect to the latter, Sommer insists that core Christian assertions—the trinity and incarnation—are not theologically impermissible within the world of Judaism, but rather are faithful to the fluidity model of divinity found in ancient Israel. For modern Jews, Sommer demonstrates how biblical notions of fluidity and antifluidity pose challenges for both liberal and conservative Jews, though not in the same way. He concludes by insisting that, contrary to customary positions, it is the fluidity model that offers the strongest statement of monotheism consistent with the personhood of God.


In another book review, Esther J Hamori says the following:


In chapter 6, Sommer traces the fluidity model into later Judaism and Christianity. He points to the continuation of these concepts—the fluidity of the divine self and multiplicity of embodiment, the rejection of these notions, and various implications for sacred space—in rabbinic literature and kabbalah, addressing what this all might mean for those reading the Hebrew Bible as scripture today. He then frames the concept of incarnation in the New Testament in terms of the fluidity model and discusses the impact this has had on later Christianity. It is fascinating to see some of this unfold, for instance, as he traces the ways in which Protestantism and Catholicism prioritize different  voices among the fluidity and antifluidity traditions. One of his laudable goals here is to demonstrate ways in which much of Christian theology is not so foreign to Judaism. He concludes, “No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scriptures contains the fluidity traditions, whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores a triune God” (135). The similarities of the Christian concept of the simultaneous presence of God in heaven and God on earth to the older fluidity model are striking, and it will be fruitful to consider Christian theology in light of this. At the same time, there are also important differences between these types of embodiment, and at a certain point the similarity may be a bit overdrawn. Sommer’s view does not take into account the difference between theophany and incarnation, between temporary manifestation and full human identity and life, as claimed in Christian theology. Perhaps more significantly, while the concept of the Trinity may be seen to reflect the multiplicity of embodiment as in the older fluidity traditions, it does not seem particularly fluid. Finally, Sommer concludes that this fluidity in Judaism and Christianity allows God both immanence and transcendence, and that it shows that the divine is not bound to any one place. (Or, as I have argued in regard to some biblical texts, even the embodiment of God demonstrates divine freedom, rather than limitation.)

Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/resources-in-defense-of-trinitarianism.html 

Trinity Notes blog
http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/

Michael Heiser on the Divine Council


See also:

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One?

by Christian William Henry Pauli

Pauli's book documents that the concept of the Trinity (or something similar) was percolating in Jewish speculative theology before, during and (for some time) after the beginning of the Christian era.



Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Big Bang, Multiverses, and the Anthropic Principle Discussed by William Lane Craig




 
Part 1 of 2



 
Part 2 of 2




Did We Just Get Lucky?

 



Besides the objections to the World Ensemble that Craig made in the above videos, here are other features of the world in which we live that make the concept of the world ensemble less plausible as an explanation of the fine-tuning we find in the universe. 

1. The correlation between life and scientific discovery (i.e. the Privileged Planet Hypothesis)

2. Gratuitous beauty. For example of the beauty of butterflies. I recommend watching the DVD video Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies (here's a preview)

3. Gratuitous pleasures. For example, think of all the various molecules and chemicals needed to produce delicious food.  For the possible existence of such molecules and chemicals requires the fine-tuning of the universe that we have. But just because a universe is fine-tuned, it doesn't necessitate that there be such chemicals or molecules. That's just one of the various pleasures in the world.

4. Multiple brains or minds that can interact with each other. The probabilities of multiple observers in one universe is less likely than just one Boltzmann brain existing in a delusional solipsism. If you believe in multiple minds in this universe, then that makes the world ensemble less likely as the explanation for this universe's fine-tuning.

5. The possibility of rational creatures being able to reproduce to multiply the number of rational creatures in existence.

6. Gratuitous sense of morality among sentient rational creatures.

7. Gratuitous sense of love among sentient rational creatures.

8. Given quantum mechanics and the multiverse theory things popping into existence (seemingly causelessly) is not only possible but likely. Yet, why don't we see such things occur publicly on a regular basis?

9. Even superheroes might actually exist (see for example HERE, and HERE [#5] ). Why don't we see them in our universe? As a Christian I believe there are supernatural entities like angels and demons who affect the world in hidden covert ways. Some might ask why I don't believe they might actually be these entities that the multiverse allows for? Given an atheistic version of the multiverse theory, that's a possibility. But why do these entities seem walk on a thin line between over and covert activities rather than manifesting publicly? Their behavior seems to be more in line with a Christian theistic worldview (with or without a multiverse) than an atheistic multiverse worldview. In the Christian worldview angels don't want to attract attention to themselves, but rather to God. While God has his purposes for veiling his existence to some degree or another (see for example HERE and HERE). Also, in a Christian worldview demons only want to attract attention to themselves only if it will lead to greater evil. If demons openly revealed themselves it would lead more people out of atheism. Something which demons wouldn't want. Demons would want humans to either not believe in them (and so allow for atheists to continue on their way to hell); or they would want humans to believe in them so that they either live in fear of them or think they have power over demons to do their bidding. When in actuality they are doing the malevolent will of those demons.

I personally don't believe that the concept of a multiverse is necessarily inconsistent with Christianity. What I do object to is appealing to the multiverse to explain fine-tuning away (and hence remove the need for a personal Creator).


Related videos




https://youtu.be/5c97Peb50IA
How Could One Argue that the Universe Didn't Have A Cause?



https://youtu.be/TK-X3x9tyqY
What about Multiverses and Parallel Universes due to Chance?



 
Does the World Ensemble Hypothesis Violate the Canons of Science?
(here Craig honestly admits that we should take the multiverse theory seriously)




Would Multiple Universes Undermine God? Interview of Robin Collins
Part 1. http://youtu.be/u9VE8dF6zDw
Part 2. http://youtu.be/QGEPGF-09Wc


More videos of Robin Collins being interviewed:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/robin-collins-interviews.html



 
 Is [It] True? Fine-Tuning the Universe - Robin Collins at Pepperdine



See also This Blog:
Intelligent Design videos by Illustra Media
misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/intelligent-design-videos-by-illustra.html  

Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe by Hugh Ross
http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe

RTB Design Compendium (2009)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009


Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith - Hugh Ross, PhD
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/12/scientific-evidence-for-christian-faith.html


What to Read: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent life
http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/what-to-read-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/  

The Fine Tuning Argument in 12 Quick Points
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/the-fine-tuning-argument-in-12-quick-points/ 



 
 The Multiverse and the Christian Faith | Jeff Zweerink, PhD


Monday, June 10, 2013

Michael Denton Interviewed



Michael Denton interviewed. He is the author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. From this interview, Denton seems to be either a deistic or a vitalist rather than a theist. Both the interviewer and Denton seem speak in New Age-like language. Nevertheless, in the discussion Denton shows interesting and odd facts of nature and science which suggests an intelligence was at work in the cosmos and in life. Filtering out the New Age-type concepts and ideas, there are concepts that are consistent with intelligent design and Christian theism.

 





Michael Denton answering a few questions.



The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis by Michael Denton
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1