Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 118 results found
Sproul, Meyer, intelligent discussion.  Enough said. Time to watch and learn.Part 1 of 5Part 2 of 5Part 3 of 5Part 4 of 5Part 5 of 5
Do extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence?Hume offered this challenge in "Of Miracles" in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Greg's guest on the radio show Sunday will be Greg Ganssle, lecturer at Yale University, specialist in God's relationship to time, and author of one of Greg's favorite books Thinking about God.  You can listen live on one of the stations that carries the show, you can stream it live on your computer or phone.
Scientists are redirecting their search for "alien" life to right here on Earth, believing there may be non-DNA-based forms of life we haven't year recognized.  This would indicate that their origin is different than the origin of life as we know it now.
I attended a discussion last night between David Berlinski and James Underdown about Darwinism sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance.  (There are more events scheduled.)  I tweeted the highlights during the event, but I have a few overall thoughts the I concluded after thinking over what I heard last night - and previous similar engagements.
Following up on my criticism earlier this week of Robert Wright's claim that evolutionary psychologists have explained non-material facts of the universe such as morality as material features of consciousness thanks to the "creative power of natural selection," I quote atheist and Darwinist defender Richard Dawkins' own assessment of materialism's explanatory success to account for consciousness (and anything else consciousness is said to explain in turn):
Greg talks with a caller about the Biblical justification for applying rationality and logic in Christianity, and gives some advice for talking to someone who disagrees.
An increasingly more common stance toward the Christian claims is skepticism.  I've heard and read this kind of position more and more.  The position seems to presume that belief requires a burden of proof that hasn't yet been met.  Sometimes the kind of evidence asked for - or the amount of evidence requested - is unreasonable and the wrong kind of standard.  Some skeptics seem to take their posture as not requiring justification itself, but that's not so.  At some point, in the face of evidence, skepticism itself needs to be justified.  Skep
The problem is this:  You don't get anything new out of a heap, not matter how big it is, that isn't put into the heap.  Yet, a physicalist view of human beings has to either deny consciousness or explain that somehow the heap creates a startlingly new kind of feature of human beings.  A heap of physical cells cannot beget something new like consciousness.
Well, it's real.  But it's not about reality.  It's about personal preferences and personal meaning.  That's the presumption behind Dan Brown's view of religion in his books and it's the increasingly common one in the world.  NYT columnist Ross Douthat explains this very clearly: