In this week's Q & A blog post, Dr. William Lane Craig continues to respond to last week's questions regarding his debate with Sean Carroll, touching on the Boltzmann Brain problem and fine-tuning.
I wanted to ask you about the latest debate with Sean Carroll. There were some strong points made in that debate that as a layman in cosmology make me want to seek further and further what are the theoretical physicists really saying on their theories. The media is not always clear on separating the cosmologist opinion/belief vs what their theory actually says without bias ...
"Those who attempt to discount the majority views of New Testament (NT) scholars on certain issues on the basis of Christian bias only show how naïve they are about historical Jesus studies. While it is doubtless true that Christians will be disproportionately represented in NT scholarship in contrast to various secular disciplines, it is far too simplistic to dismiss the conclusions of NT scholarship as heavily biased and thus easily discounted ..."
Dr. Craig, In your debates on the Resurrection, you often present four facts that the majority of New Testament scholars support, namely the honorable burial, the discovery of the empty tomb by women, the post-Resurrection appearances, and the disciples' genuine belief in the Resurrection. While the majority of scholars support these facts, my question has to do with the minority who disagree. For example, John Dominic Crossan has claimed Jesus was buried in a shallow grave, where his body was eaten by wild dogs. My question is this: from what sources do scholars who disagree with the four facts stated above draw their conclusions? The way I understand it, there are very few extra-Biblical sources that discuss the Resurrection, and none that contradict the four facts stated above. And the Canonical Gospels make it very clear that the four facts are indeed what happened. So on what grounds do these dissenting scholars dispute the four facts stated above?
Dr. Craig, I appreciate the work you do a great deal and it has been personally beneficial to my faith and my ministry. I do have a question, however, concerning the 1st century Jewish expectations of resurrection. You write, and I agree that the evidence points to a Jewish belief in a general resurrection at the end of the age (John 11:24), as opposed to that of a dying and rising Messiah during their own lifetime. This would seem to work as evidence against certain theories that would deny the resurrection, such as it being a hoax, or the resurrection appearances being hallucinations, etc. ...
Dear Dr. Craig I am a Christian student from Norway. During a debate about if god exists or not (on a Facebook group called political youth), I defended his existence to the best of my ability, using the Kalam cosmological argument. I had seen on your YouTube videos, and on your articles here on RF. However, I encountered a problem. Someone else tried to undercut the argument using the problem of existence of an unembodied mind beyond time and space. I fear I cannot counter this, and I struggled to find an explanation to this on your pages.
On your site (www.reasonablefaith.com) you say: "On most Divine Command theories God possesses His moral qualities essentially (indeed, that's just what it means to say they're part of His nature!). So there is no possible world in which God is not kind, impartial, gracious, loving, and so on. So I don't think it is possible that Allah is God, since Allah is not all-loving and impartial." Essentially you argue that Allah can't be God based on His immorality. But don't you? ...
In the news I notice that the BICEP2 project has released some data that measures the polarization of the cosmic background radiation due to gravitational waves in the very first instances of the universes existence. Physicists seem to be getting excited as they claim it supports the multiverse theory. I am not familiar with the mathematics that underpins cosmogony so I was wondering if you had any comments on a few of their claims.
Though the New Testament is not a textbook on economics, it was immersed in a particular economic environment and much of the New Testament teaching had implications for economic life. In the New Testament, Jesus takes up right where the Old Testament prophets left off. Care for the poor was just as important to Jesus as it was to the prophets. When the followers of John the Baptist (who was in prison at the time) asked Jesus if He was indeed the Messiah who was to come, He answered in terms that could have been taken right out of the prophets. He put it like this, “Go back to John (the Baptist) and tell him what you have seen and heard—the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are being raised to life and the good news is being preached to the poor” (Matt. 11:4-5). The evidence that Jesus was who He claimed to be was not only that He did miracles, but who were the beneficiaries of those miracles were: the poor, marginalized and vulnerable. Similarly, when He spoke of final judgment and what would separate His true followers from the pretenders, He made it clear that how someone treats the poor is a critical indication of a person’s spiritual maturity. This is likely what Jesus meant when He said that, “I tell you the truth, when you did it to the least of these my brothers, you were doing it to me” (referring to feeding the hungry and taking in the needy, Matt. 25:40).
Dr. Craig, I'm an atheist and I've long followed your debates. Though I'm not moved by your arguments I think you present and defend them well. One of these arguments, the fine tuning argument, seems to be quite presumptuous in it's attempt to explain life. It seems to me that it skips quite a few steps to land at a conclusion that life is an ultimate goal of the universe ...http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rr
Hello Dr. Craig, I hope you are fine. I have theological objections to your proposition that an infinite regression of events into the past is impossible. I adhere to a particular Islamic denomination and my denomination doesn't accept the view that it's impossible for there to be an infinite regression of events into the past...
Dear Dr. Craig, My question is on objective morality. I lead a Christian life group of 11th and 12th graders, where I often use apologetics to show them that belief in God, specifically Christianity, is not only the true religion, but also the best explanation for the origin of the universe. I firmly believe that equipping teenagers in this particular stage of life is essential to firmly ground their beliefs and also to explain their reasons for holding such beliefs as they prepare for university and the work force. With regard to objective moral value though, I find myself wrestling with a problem. I do agree that without God there cannot be moral objectivity, but where do we get the rules for morality?
Dr. Craig, I read your excellent book "Creation out of Nothing" and I agree with it! However, doesn't God need tremendous (if not infinite) energy to create something out of nothing? Is God's energy something rather than nothing? What is God's Mind made of if it is immaterial?...
Dear Dr. Craig, I am currently studying for 2 University degrees (Philosophy and Biology) in Sydney, Australia. As I am sure your aware from your recent tour of Australia my country tends to lean toward a secular approach more so than your home country. While I am by no means a Christian, I do find, time and again, that even the teachers’ presupposition of an atheistic worldview bleeds through their approach to discourse and find myself consistently challenging the ‘authority’ as it were. In turn resulting in an un-intended theistic outcome. For this reason I have decided to first complete both disciplines and if my theistic outcome prevails then seriously consider deliberating upon the truths of different religions and see if I can hold any consistently without intellectual debt...
From the beginning, we learn that God created the world and called it good, making the material world fundamentally good (Gen. 1:31). He further entrusted human beings with dominion over the earth—giving them both the privilege of enjoying the benefits of the material world, but also the responsibility for caring for the world. We also learn that, from the beginning, God has implanted His wisdom into the world and given human beings the necessary tools to uncover His wisdom and apply it for their benefit (Proverbs 8:22-31). God set human beings free to utilize their God-given intelligence, initiative and creativity in discerning and applying what the wisdom He embedded into the world—this is all a part of the responsible exercise of dominion over creation that brings innovation and productivity to benefit humankind.
The Bible is God’s very word and therefore carries the authority of God himself. And that word of God, Scripture tells us, is a powerful thing—“living and active and sharper than even a two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). It floods the soul with its resplendent rays, laying bare God’s truth and putting all darkness to flight. Yet, as this text tells us, not all receive the truth of this light, and some esteem it as folly itself. How can this be? If Scripture is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16), how could any reject its authoritative claims?
Dr. John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School, will present “Origins Today: Genesis Through Ancient Eyes” at Biola University. John Walton’s work on Genesis 1-3 offers a fresh perspective on the complex issue of faith and science by seeking to understand the message of Scripture within its ancient context.
Among the must-have toys of Christmas 1975 was the pet rock. Advertising executive Gary Dahl conceived the idea while listening to others complain about the hassles of animate pets, and then his marketing instincts kicked in. He gathered ordinary stones,
A frequently asked question from my graduate advisees is this: How do you keep up with the latest scholarship in your discipline? Or, how do you stay on the “cutting edge” in your academic field? There are at least five maintenance disciplines that come immediately to my mind.
I was recently reflecting on my doctoral training and I realized that I learned a few things (ten, to be precise) beyond the actual subject matter of my discipline. For starters, I learned that footnotes can be overdone.
My 83-year-old mother has dementia. To help me work through the pain of this living death, I recently gave her a gift she was not able to receive: a letter commemorating her 10th anniversary in the nursing home.
Biola University