Class Wrap-Up

Hello, everyone!

I have been looking through the content of our class over the past year and am realizing the need to complete a wrap-up of everything we've covered.  In short, the wrap-up should include explanations of the following statement.

• Is the “Prime Reality” (that from which everything derives it's being) most likely a mind? 
• Philosophical Arguments
• Cosmological Argument 
• Teleological Argument (Anthropic Principle)
• Teleological Argument (Design of Life)
• Moral Argument

A complete apologetic answer will include the following.

1. Arguments which both support your view, as well as refute the opposing view.
2. An explanation of the arguments raised against your view, as well as an acknowledgement of the arguments which support the opposition.

 I think we will have time to complete a review of one more debate.  We will use the remaining time on the content above.

God bless you all!  See you tonight!

Ricky 

The God Delusion Debate

Hello, All! 

This Thursday night we will begin our analysis of "The God Delusion Debate" between Doctor John Lennox (Professor of Philosophy and Mathematics at the University of Oxford (Christian)) and Professor Richard Dawkins (Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford (Athiest)). We will watch the various sections of the debate and discuss the content through a group discussion time. We will also use the debate handout provided by Fixed Point Foundation. I have provided a link in case you do not have a copy. http://www.fixed-point.org/media/phocadownload/GDD_discussionguide.pdf

God Bless! See you Thursday night!

Ricky

Believing in the Un-Seen

I had an interesting teaching moment with my daughter today.  In her science lesson she was asked to imagine being invisible.  She was then asked to go throughout the house and open all the doors.  She was then asked, "Do you think anyone will know that a force was at work opening the doors even though they could not see you doing it?"  My daughter, who is 7, promptly replied, "Yes."  I then asked how they would know?  Again, promptly, she stated, "Because they see the open doors.  They could see what you did."

I just couldn't pass up the opportunity!  We took the next 15 minutes or so talking about "cause" and "effect".  On paper I first drew a bee and then a person.  I then showed the person getting stung by the bee.  I asked, "What was the cause of the person saying "Ouch!""  She said, "The bee." I then asked "What was the effect?"  Correctly, she said "The sting and pain."

I then asked here about the cause of the computer on our table.  She said that someone made it.  But I pointed out that she wasn't aware of exactly who.  How could you know fore sure?  I then took it one step further and asked, "What invented the computer, the hands that put it together, or the mind that came up with the idea?"  She rightly assessed "The mind."

I then asked her to look out the window at the house next door.  I asked "What built that house?"  She answered, "Builders." I replied, "Let's be more specific.  What invented the house?"  Again she replied "A mind."  I then said "One last question.  What is the effect you see?"  She stated, "The house."  "How do you know?" I asked.  "Because it wouldn't be there!  Duh!"  Slightly astonished, I asked, "So what you're telling me is that I can believe in the existence of something I can not see simply by observing it's effect?"  To which she simply said, "Yep!"

Despite the "Duh" issue I had to address I was quite impressed.  A 7 year old child has more common sense than many adults.

See you all tonight!

Ricky

Part 3 - "The Moral Landscape" Debate

I hope to see everyone again tonight for part 3 of "The Moral Landscape" debate. Northwest Campus High School Room (7 - 8:45pm)

What Is THE Correct Foundation for Morals and Duties; God or Man?

Hello, everyone. I know it's been a couple weeks, but I've been swamped with the duties of life. I hope you are all doing well.

This Thursday night we will begin an analysis of the debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris on the foundation of morality. In preparation I would encourage each of us to attempt to clearly define the terms "good" and "evil". It's not as easy as it may seem as dictionary definitions don't exactly do justice to the Christian's perception or understanding of terms.

With that in mind I will take the time at the beginning of our study to outline the essential points and arguments being given in support of each particular worldview. I will also provide a copy of the transcript of the debate to help us as we navigate through all the intellectual jargon.

God bless you all! See you Thursday night!

Craig/Atkins Debate & Moral Necessity of God

In case it hasn't occurred to anyone we have begun to transcend the arguments for God's existence based on strict observation of pure scientific discoveries and have now entered the realm of philosophy and logic.  Tomorrow night we will attempt to complete our analysis of the Craig/Atkins debate. It will entail a high-level overview of a number of questions. While some of the questions below are purely scientific in nature, many of them appeal to the realm of philosophy and logic; of which pure science can not account.  

1. If a “God” does not play into the account for anything, then why does the atheist assert atheism rather than agnosticism? 
2. For what is the scientific method unable to account? (I.e. what can it not explain?)
3. On the atheist view, what are the possible explanations for testimonies about miracles; whether pertaining to Christ or modern medical exceptions?
4. Are the resurrection accounts impossible to refute? If so, why can one be a confident believer?
5. Why, if theism is correct, doesn’t logic command the adherence of the academic community? Why is there so much skepticism?
6. What is the principle of “simplicity” in logical argumentation?
7. Why is “God” required in order to believe in objective moral values?
8. If miracles were important to demonstrate the deity of Christ, why does he not still perform them?
9. On the basis of atheism, what is the foundation to expect uniformity of physical laws which are required to perform science?
10. If objective moral values exist, why can Christians not agree on them?
11. On atheism, how can we be objective on any issue?
12. Why do Christians believe Christianity to be the only true faith?
13. Isn’t it a leap of reason to install a “God” as the cause for the universe? Couldn’t there be any number of possible causes? 
14. On atheism, there are no objective moral values. If so, then is there such a thing as ultimate justice?

Beginning next week (or the week after that) we will study the argument for God's existence based on ethics and objective moral values.  This will be a fascinating part of our study together.  I have updated the "Homework" document on our blog with the research questions for that study.  Feel free to prepare them before we begin.


God bless you all!
Ricky

What is the evidence for/against the existence of God? (A debate)

Hey, everyone. Starting tomorrow night we will begin the next phase of our study by analyzing our first debate. It is between William Lane Craig (Christian Phylosopher, Theologian and Apologist) and Dr. Peter Atkins (Scientific Athiest). The debate is titled, "What is the evidence for/against the existence of God?" So you're aware, we've spent the last 6 months educating ourselves on the logical, phylosophical and scientific subject matter you will hear presented. As a result, I'm confident you will not struggle too much with the content. Instead, I expect you will be INCREDIBLY encouraged in the foundation of your Christian faith. I strongly encourage you to bring your junior high to college age students. I guarantee most, if not all, of them have never witnessed something like this before. See you all tomorrow night at 7pm.