Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? Elias Ayala vs. Dan Barker

 

Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? Elias Ayala vs. Dan Barker

https://www.youtube.com/live/yeucoXcUE7c?si=JV_hU5vZb23MyXnQ

Jordan Peterson Discusses God

 

Jordan Peterson Discusses God
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/jordan-peterson-discusses-god-part-one

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/jordan-peterson-discusses-god-part-two


Is Jordan Peterson Now Preaching a Christian Message?
https://youtu.be/NbW-PFUkg54

 

 

 

 

Modern Cosmology and the Existence of God: A Dialogue Between RTB and Reasonable Faith

https://www.youtube.com/live/n1Cfnazgc1w?si=emccyoSVfx_tQeNA

Why Believe in God? w/ William Lane Craig and Michael Ruse

 

 Comedian and actor Bryan Callen had Christian apologist William Lane Craig and agnostic philosohper of science Michael Ruse on his podcast. See also Callen's interview with Christian Intelligent Design proponent Stephen C. Meyer and atheist skeptic Michael Shermer HERE.

 

Why Believe in God? w/ William Lane Craig and Michael Ruse

https://youtu.be/T2vukahOzmM

PART TWO

Why God Must Exist w/ Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Michael Ruse
https://youtu.be/huCQ0klhrdg

By the way, in times past and multiple times Michael Ruse has distanced himself from atheists like Richard Dawkins. Notice these quote:

"The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist.... Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing"
-Michael Ruse; atheist/agnostic and Philosopher of Science

I have written that [Richard Dawkins' book] The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it.- Michael Ruse, well known philosopher of science.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

Graham Oppy & Guillaume Bignon Discuss Rationality, Religious Experience and the Case for God

 

Atheist Graham Oppy & Christian Guillaume Bignon discuss "Rationality, Religious Experience and the Case for God." Oppy is considered one of the top atheist philosopher living today. Well known Christian apologist William Lane Craig has repeatedly stated that he thinks Graham Oppy is "scary smart." Guillaume Bignon is a Christian philosopher who is well known to be a top defender of Calvinism. I've linked to and referenced his work in many of my blogs.

https://youtu.be/4KCJXMeM9WQ

Atheist Dan Barker Debates Michael L. Brown

 

At one of my blogs (HERE) I linked to three debates where I thought Dan Barker lost a debate to a Christian. I linked to them because I've listened to dozens of Dan Barker's debates and I think he wins nearly all of them. So, for a theist to win a debate against Barker is remarkable. Here's a FOURTH debate where I think a Christian won against Dan Barker.

Does the God of the Bible exist?
[Atheist Dan Barker vs. Christian Michael L. Brown]
https://youtu.be/tQtDha3pgOw

SEE ALSO:   Atheist Dan Barker Defeated by Three Christian Theists

DOES GOD EXIST? Trent Horn vs. Ben Watkins (live, in-person debate)

 

Catholic apologist Trent Horn and atheist Ben Watkins debate the existence of God at the first Capturing Christianity Conference:

DOES GOD EXIST? Trent Horn vs. Ben Watkins (live, in-person debate)
https://youtu.be/GTPwaU3JAU8

DEBATE: Is There Good Evidence for God? | Dillahunty Vs Vela

DEBATE: Is There Good Evidence for God?
Matt Dillahunty Vs Tyler Vela

https://youtu.be/kf0Us__r9SQ

Why Matt Dillahunty Won’t Believe in God: A Debate Review

https://youtu.be/TActBoNbKAE

Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

 Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA

OR HERE:
https://youtu.be/Zi5817huS9M

Evidence for God and A Case for Christianity

Triablogue is one of my favorite Blogs I visit. The Triabloggers have addressed the evidence for God's existence and the truth of Christianity many, many multiple times. The following are some examples:


Evidence for God
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/12/im-going-to-list-and-summarize-what-i.html

Required reading for atheists
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/required-reading-for-atheists.html

Making a case for Christianity
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/making-case-for-christianity.html

A case for Christ
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-case-for-christ.html

See also links to the Triablogue eBooks at the right of their blogpage. They include eBooks like:

• Abolition of Reason
• Common Objections to Christianity
• Love the Lord with Heart and Mind
• The End of Infidelity
• The Infidel Delusion
• This Joyful Eastertide: A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb
• Why I Believe: A Positive Apologetic
• Why I Believe: I'm Glad You Asked!

Atheistic Objection to "Thoughts & Prayers"

Recently it's been popular on social media to object to theists stating that their "thoughts & prayers" go out to the living victims of tragedy. Usually, this objection comes from simplistic atheists. The following meme is representative of their objection.

I got that meme from an atheistic Facebook group. The following is my response [with minor adjustments].

1. The apparent fact that the phrase "thought & prayers" instead of merely "prayers" has, from my observation, arisen after the emergence of aggressive atheism [cf. The New Atheism movement] suggests to me that that addition of "thoughts" to the simple term "prayers" was an attempt by non-theists and atheists to be included in wishing the living victims of tragedy well. Especially since, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of most prayers are thoughts. You can have thought without prayer, but you usually don't have prayer without thought [I'm leaving aside the issue of speaking in tongues whereby one allegedly can pray without knowing what one is praying about because it's not pertinent to the issue]. Given theism, the statement "Our thoughts and prayers are for/with the victims" would tend to seem to be redundant. So, if there's any asininity to the phrase "thoughts & prayers", it might actually find its source in atheism, not theism.

2. Those who object to people saying they are praying for the living victims of tragedy on account of the [alleged] fact that praying doesn't do anything to help beg the question that it doesn't help. They would have to be omniscient to know all the various ways God might respond to prayer in the short term, long term, the spiritual, the physical, the emotional, the financial, the earthly, the heavenly [e.g. victims of tragedy might end up getting "saved" because of seeing their need for God]. So, if anything, it's objectors to praying and prayers who are potentially being unmerciful toward the victims. If the atheistic objectors point out that theists who pray don't also do something tangible in this physical world, so what? Not everyone (whether theist or atheist) can do something tangible or financial (etc.) about a situation. Since, hard atheism [positive belief in the non-existence of all possible gods], as opposed to soft atheism [mere lack of a belief in gods], is impossible to prove; the logical, rational and merciful thing is for soft atheists to tolerate [or even encourage] theists to pray for victims of tragedy. But many atheists would rather not be that logical or rational.

3. Also, what's wrong with thought? An atheist or theist could be spending some time thinking of the victims and later come to some insight into how he or she CAN **NOW** help the victims, and even possibly prevent future similar tragedies. Isn't that precisely what objectors to "Thoughts & Prayers" are attempting to do when they object? Namely, thinking. That is, unless they're willing to admit that they are being UNTHINKING when they make such asinine objections to " *̲T̲H̲O̲U̲G̲H̲T̲S̲*̲ & Prayers".