Is Muhammed Prophesied in the Bible? James White vs Zakir Hussain

The Same Sex marriage Debate: David Robertson and Peter D. Williams vs. Patrick Harvie (leader of Greens) and Willie Rennie (Leader Lib Dems)

Collision - The Movie

This is a must watch for those interested in the God debate, from whatever side of the fence you reside you'll enjoy Hitchens at his best and find someone in Doug Wilson who can give as good as he gets. They both seem to genuinely disagree with each-other but seem to forge a real friendship which is a great example for all of us. We can disagree agreeably.

Let us know your thoughts.



The book that came as a result if their interactions is available here.

Is God Necessary for Morality? Richard Lucas vs. Tim Maguire

Response to the New Atheist Rosa Rubicondior - Christians! Be Sensible Now And Tell Me This.

 I recently found myself reading the blog of a UK based  New Atheist who blogs and Tweets alot about problems they have have with Christianity here. Most of the content is actually pretty good and the author seems pretty well read in the atheistic literature from what I can see. I subsequently stumbled upon a post that posed several questions for Christians to respond to. So being Christians, a few of us got together and offer a few brief points in response to Rosa Rubicondior. They are not exhaustive responses, and some of the questions touch upon very similar points so it wasn't necessary to go over them again. Anyway, below are our thoughts on the questions posed to Christians, hopefully the response will be helpful for both Christians and Atheists.

 Hopefully these questions are genuine and if this is the case I hope that these short responses help to correct any misunderstandings, and help people to better understand what Christians actually believe. There is often a tendency for many New Atheists to come up with questions about theism or Christianity specifically that are meant to rock the theistic boat. However the answers are usually a little thought or book away. I think its important as a Christian to better understand the New Atheism and see where their coming from so I take the time to read their books. Perhaps if I can humbly suggest that the New Atheists occasionally pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology (I know after reading Dawkins you think its a non-subject). Stranger things have happened. Most of us are products of the books we read, most atheists read books that support their case or assumptions and the minority of Christians who do pick up a book generally do the same. Its good to mix it up a little.

Hugh Ross vs Lewis Wolpert on Evidence for God

I had the great pleasure yesterday of attending the debate "Does the universe show evidence for a creator?" at Imperial College, London. Arguing in the affirmative was astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe,  a science-faith think tank from the USA; arguing the negative was Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of biology and British Humanist.

Before the debate, however, I had the privilege of meeting the participants. Hugh Ross and his wife Kathy were a delight. Kathy remarked that the weather was hotter here than in California! I made sure she appreciated how rare an occurrence this is (have to say, I've been loving it! I can walk down the streets of London in shorts and t-shirt at 9pm)!

Then Lewis Wolpert showed up! A really nice guy! Winsome and congenial. He seemed to get on very well with Hugh and Kathy. I discovered that his son Matthew appears three times a week on the comedy circuit in Leicester Square, so that's an act I definitely need to check out! We also had a great talk about the fascinating complexity of the cell, which Wolpert happily admits is truly mindboggling.

But, onto the debate itself! A good turn-out. The lecture theatre was packed. It was hosted by Imperial College's Christian Union, but a decent number of atheists and sceptics showed up too - which is quite something given that AC Grayling was giving a lecture in the next room (he passed by me earlier as I was editing my latest Dawkins-critical video on my laptop... I don't think he noticed)!

This is where it gets interesting. Hugh Ross went first, and outlined for 20 minutes his Creation Model, arguing that the Bible - and only the Bible - contains consistent, scientifically accurate predictions about the cosmos, the empirical data for which is only being discovered recently in the modern age. His case is essentially that the more we discover about the universe, the more the evidence for design and a transcendent creator piles up and confirms what the Bible has been telling us for the past thousands of years. Of particular note were passages from Jeremiah and Romans, which Hugh claims tell us about the expansion of the universe and the law of entropy. Alongside we have the opening of the Bible, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth - the Big Bang is this beginning. When this was discovered, a great many scientists were reluctant to accept it, fearing that an absolute beginning of space and time gave too much leverage to those who believe in theistic creation.

It was fascinating also to hear Hugh cite an article written by atheist physicists called "Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant". In this article, its atheist authors were forced to concede that this particular cosmological constant left them no choice but to invoke a transcendent causal agent. Their solution? To "do a Daniel Dennett": conclude that this cosmological constant must, therefore, surely be false (!)

Before moving on to Wolpert's response, I cannot help but also comment on the audience. Well, specifically, the students in front of me. They were clearly "sceptics"! Though not just sceptics, rather restless sceptics. The kind I can remember being while I was at university and convinced of my own immortality. There was an evident aggression and desire for peer-approval in the way they increasingly shot each other smirks and disapproving glances as Hugh spoke (one seemed to think it especially important that his lady friend understood unequivocally that this religious nutter wasn't going to sway his opinion one jot)!

It was a touch depressing how superficial some of their reactions were - one questioner claimed to "understand what it's like to be arrogant" before accusing Hugh Ross of being so for claiming that the universe was designed (I don't think that guy actually does understand arrogance). Another student was taking numerous notes while shaking his head. I've no problem with critical note-taking, but I found it curious that one of his bullet-points read "where the f*** did that graph come from". Why the expletive? Where does this extra infusion of hostile energy come from? Why not just write "where did that graph come from"?

Onto Lewis Wolpert's rebuttal. Now, I've seen and heard quite a bit of Wolpert in debates on the existence of God. Indeed, one of my earliest memories of discovering apologetics was watching his 2007 debate against William Lane Craig. His arguments back then were pretty weak, so I wondered what he'd produce this time, five years on...

Exactly the same arguments! Specifically:

1. "Who made God?"

2. "We believe in God because we evolved an over-active sense of cause and effect".

3. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"

4. "Why is your religion any better than the thousands of other religions out there"?

I was astonished! Craig had addressed and exposed all these arguments as completely fallacious during their debate in Westminster:

1. Asking "who made God?" has nothing to do with the question of whether the universe shows evidence for a creator (it's a secondary question, and makes the same anti-scientific demand Dawkins does: of "who designed the designer?" leading to the requirement of an infinite regress of explanations in one go, so no explanation could be accepted). This is not to speak of the fact that God is uncaused, which is precisely the position Lewis Wolpert would have to hold about the universe (i.e. his objection is special pleading).

2. The second argument commits the genetic fallacy: of trying to invalidate a view by explaining how someone comes to hold it. Imagine if I walked up to an atheist and said, "you deny God because you have a bad relationship with your father, so you can't stand the idea of a bigger authority figure behind the universe". Even if that were true, would it mean therefore that atheism is false and that God exists?! Clearly not. Why has Wolpert not come to terms with this fallacy, especially given that it has already been pointed out to him?

3. As for evidence of absence, this was something I took upon myself to point out to Lewis during audience Q&A: that it's logically fallacious to rely upon absence of evidence. Having no evidence, say, that there's a person lurking in the corridor outside the lecture theatre, does not mean that we therefore do have evidence there is nobody outside!

4. As for asking "what makes you think your religion is truer than any other"? I can understand this having rhetorical appeal to those who are already sceptical of the idea of God. However, at the end of the day, it's not even an argument. It's a question. And the answer to that question would be... in Hugh's opening speech!

Now, as for those specific arguments Hugh laid out, to show that there is evidence for the Christian God, Wolpert responded:

"There isn't any evidence for God, and you certainly can't get it from physics."

...wasn't that the very title of the debate? About whether or not the physical universe shows evidence for God? So, essentially, Wolpert used up his time recycling fallacious arguments, which had nothing to do with Hugh's presentation, and dismissed the presentation itself in a single sentence consisting of a mere question-begging assertion. In fact, the most telling moment was when he said "I'm not a physicist, I don't understand any of it, but I'm sure that even if I did... it would still not be evidence for God"!

What he did do, which I have to admit was quite a clever tactic, was to divert the audience's attention away from Hugh's astrophysics to biology. Evolution! "Do you think we evolved"? "Did Eve come from Adam's rib"? This manoeuvre set the tone for the lengthy cross-examination and Q&A which was to follow, as Ross's views here certainly aren't in line with the popularly accepted interpretations of evolutionary development (though one cannot be left in any doubt he's comfortable offering evidence for them).

There were no rebuttal rounds after those opening speeches. The rest was cross-examination and audience Q&A, which went on for quite a while and allowed many questions to be raised from the floor. I had to admire Hugh's stamina: he'd only recently come off the plane, must have been jet-lagged, but calmly carried on simply providing answers to the many questions which came his way (and kept doing so for two hours solid after the event had finished). Indeed the questions were very Hugh Ross-heavy. At one point it seemed to be simply a "grill Hugh" session, with Wolpert only becoming involved for the occasional extra point of view. You could almost forget he was there sometimes. He didn't seem to be trying. I wonder if Hugh Ross gave him something new to think about?

Much, much more could be said, but I reckon I can leave it here. Doubtless the recording will be released soon and you can go through it all in greater detail (I'll link it in this post when it's out). Some students appeared unimpressed with Hugh's case, expressing that it was too vague and vulnerable to differing biblical interpretations. Others were coming out with remarks of surprise and interest, admitting they'd not expected to encounter a Christian scientist who was prepared to answer all their questions in such depth. Only time can tell what ripples these events cause.

Speaking of which, you do know how God created different dimensions of time and exists in a time dimension all of his own, don't you? If not, you will soon!

Calum Miller vs. Peter Atkins "Does God Exist?" Debate - Oxford 2012

Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens - By what standard?

drcraigvideos: the Fall and Rise

Many of you will know about the YouTube channel drcraigvideos, which contained over 800 videos of debates and speeches by Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist Dr William Lane Craig, and had accumulated over 4 million views. Well, last week, YouTube shut it down for alleged violation of community guidelines and copyright infringement (apparently all it takes is a few seconds of disputed footage to disqualify an entire channel).

Oddly enough, precisely the same thing happened to another major apologetics channel PPsimmons (which had over 20 million views) on what appears to be the very same day as this incident. [UPDATE 17-5-2012: PPsimmons recently came back online! They managed to make enough noise to get the attention of google! click here to find out Youtube's stated reason for taking down the PPsimmons channel.]

It looks to me that a particular gathering of online atheists have given up on conversation, and simply desire to attack online apologetics resources instead (I know people who have been stalked and threatened with exposure of personal information or even death)! William Lane Craig, in particular, really seems to have gotten under their skin, with ring-leaders and YouTube atheist gurus resorting to personal attacks, ad populum fallacies and now, apparently, this.

It has to be said, however, that if this emotive, anti-intellectual branch of online atheism is a big angry crocodile, drcraigvideos' previous owner probably poked it with the stick a little too much (sarcastic comments and quite a bit of blocking)! Specifically, things got sticky when a "DMCA war" became waged, with both sides of the conflict convinced they were legally in the right and the other not. The climate seems to have been raised for trigger-happy "flagging" whenever you don't like somebody's views.

Which brings us back to our current predicament. This previous owner could not sustain looking after the channel, so handed it over to Reasonable Faith as an official channel. This was great news, but entailed a lot of tidying up and management! The decision was made to switch off YouTube comments - leveling the playing field so that no abusive messages could be posted. Not long after, however, the channel went down (though not before a number of atheist channels had mirrored some videos in the name of "free speech")!

So, what's happening now? Well, Reasonable Faith are appealing the decision, and apparently will know whether or not they've been successful within 14 days. It's irritating, indeed! Many links in many blogs and on many websites, which use these videos, are now severed. But we will have to see how open (if at all) YouTube are to revising their decision.

However, we apologists don't just lie down! Already, efforts are being made to re-upload all the video resources (I've been in contact with one person who backed up the entire channel - he's popular right now)! Reasonable Faith themselves are also starting with a fresh new channel, and are uploading carefully-checked content (the good thing being that they have unlimited video length, so many debates which were heretofore broken into 10-minute parts can now be seen in their entirety). Essentially, if past incidents are any indicator, this could result in a flood of all the videos back on YouTube, x 10! Indeed, it may even be one of those situations God uses for good - a chance to make a whole new stamp on Reasonable Faith's use of media? An important lesson to learn? A sign of worry amidst dissenters on Youtube? A way to mobilize fellow Christians? Possibly!

So, at the moment, we can be confident that the videos will all be back, though perhaps less optimistic for the drcraigvideos channel itself, with its substantial list of subscribers and web links. However, even if it is the case that we need to bid farewell to the channel as we knew it, it's already served a tremendous purpose in bringing Dr Craig to Youtube, and circulating the material itself (it was watching Craig vs Lewis Wolpert, several years ago, when I realized there may be a genuine need to re-examine my atheism)!

As annoying a situation as it is, I think good can come from this, as well as new creativity. One wonders what ripples it makes on the atheist community too. Some have been dancing for joy, (as if drcraigvideos were an oppressive Black Hawk helicopter taken down by an RPG) but I've also read comments from a surprising number of atheists who almost seem a little upset or even taken aback (perhaps for some it's the Christopher Hitchens syndrome of wanting someone to argue with)? This is an important time to remember those atheists out there who exercise far more integrity than the culprits behind these sorts of attacks.

I will leave you, for the moment, with two pieces of good news:

1. Lots of Dr Craig-related material is still intact. For example, here's perhaps the definitive William Lane Craig moment:




2. Fresh, new Craig videos continue to come in! For example, a delicious recent debate in Denmark:



... and two never-before-seen debates from Craig's 2007 UK Tour:




When an entire channel is knocked down, it can seem a time for outrage, bewilderment and defeatism. However, let's try to see the good that could come from this (such as a fresh break from the past, new resources, ruffled opposition, and amplified proactivity on the part of fellow Christian YouTubers). Things are uncertain right now, but there's clearly enough going on in terms of uploading and rescuing, that we can soon expect to have the material back, in one channel or another (or multiple channels!) and hopefully to stay.

I will keep important updates coming in. In the mean time, keep your eyes open for explosions of drcraigvideos material springing up around Youtube (and some other kinds of explosions I'm sure)! Those of you who are able to download and backup the backups of this content, I'd encourage also! Please feel free to post questions in the comments section, requests to fix broken links to videos, or even news and discoveries on this issue.

And, finally, I have a short video of my own to share with you. Strike us down, we will become more powerful:

[UPDATE: drcraigvideos was restored on May 18th! There has been much rejoicing and, as a result of this episode, it would appear that most of these debate videos now exist in triplicate on youtube! Result!]

Unbelievable Conference 2012 - Video Promo

Please tweet and repost if you have a blog!

William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?", University of Manchester, October 2011

Does the Qur'an Misrepresent the Trinity? James White vs. Bassam Zawadi

Part 1:



Part 2:

God: The Failed Hypothesis? Stenger vs Ross

Great debate between Hugh Ross and Victor Stenger. Hugh Ross runs Reason to Believe who I'm glad to inform you will be coming over to the UK for the Unbelievable Conference 2012, you can find out more about it and book your place here.



If you want to help support event please Tweet and Facebook about the conference wherever you can please, hopefully see you there.

Should Marriage be Redefined in the UK?

Please mark and reserve an important date for your diaries!

On Monday 30th April 2012 at Gunnersbury Baptist Church in Chiswick, there will be an exciting and relevant, free public debate on the subject of the Governments recent proposals to redefine marriage to incorporate same-sex couples.

Two top-class speakers with differing opinions will discuss this very important topic.

1) Adrian Trett is Chair of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) + Liberal Democrats since the Coalition Government was formed, and the author of the original motion on Equal Marriage in the UK for Liberal Democrat Conference in 2010.

His campaigning group has been working with our Liberal Democrat Ministers, in particular Lynne Featherstone MP to enable this issue to be brought on to the Government's agenda, now with the public consultation and hopefully for legislation to be passed by 2015 to enable equal marriage in the UK.

2) Rev. David Robertson is the Pastor of St. Peters Free Church in Dundee. He is the Author of 'The Dawkins Letters' and regular conference speaker and debater for the Evangelical Christian Church.

There will be a chance, during this debate for questions from the audience.

Doors will open at 7.00 pm for a 7.30 pm start. Entrance to this debate is absolutely free although early arrival is recommended.

Should be fun.

Let us know if your going to make the trip!

Dinesh D'Souza V John Loftus - Does the Christian God exist?

The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin: Richard Dawkins vs. Rowan Williams

A Short Summary and Critique of Peter Tatchell's Arguments for Same Sex Marriage

If you ever open a newspaper or turn on the TV you should be aware about the current drive to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I've just finished watching a short discussion on the issue and thought I would weigh in with a brief summary and response to some of the arguments made by the prominent same sex marriage activist Peter Tatchell. This is by no means meant to be an extensive response to the complexities of the subject, but just a few quick points on the matter.


But we love each other...

Marriage is more than just two people loving each other, at its core it is an institution between one man and one women for the principle of having and raising children in a safe and healthy environment. If we are to follow the argument that love alone is the key factor in marriage then we are legitimately entitled to ask same sex marriage advocates why they are not in support and 'tolerant' of plural marriage, and if not why not since they also evidently love each other. Many critics argue that legalised same sex marriage won't necessarily lead to plural marriage but when nearly every argument flows from the same logic its difficult to argue that this won't be the case. After all how can we deny the right of marriage to those in plural relationships, what moral principle stops us from getting to that point if we grant the assumptions of same-sex marriage advocates?

Is The Original New Testament Lost? A Dialogue with Dr. Bart Ehrman & Dr. Daniel Wallace

Duelling Professors: John Lennox and Peter Atkins Debate the Existence of God

The Cambridge Union Debate: William Lane Craig & Peter S Williams vs. Andrew Copson & Arif Ahmed

The motion for this debate was "This House Believes that God is not a Delusion". It took place before a packed house at the Cambridge Union Society on 20th October 2011, as a part of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith Tour 2011.

Enjoy!