Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Prove it!
• A Few Questions About Hell
• The truth shall set you free
• Apologetics for kindergarteners
• 7 Short Videos by Michael Licona
• Atheism and Negative Social Behavior
• Question and Answer with Lee Strobel
• Busting The Dying And Rising Gods Myths
• A.C. Grayling would rather debate fairies
• Response to Dawkins Part 4 (by Paul Copan)
• Fine-tuning requirements for life (4 PDFs!)
• The Giraffe: A Model of Intelligent Design
• Is the Supernatural Real? - Dr. JP Moreland
• Book Review: A History of Apologetics, Part 3 of 3
• Interview with Tom Gilson: Discipleship of the Mind (MP3)
• Physics Evidence for the Existence of God (On A Razor's Edge)
• William Lane Craig on his debate with Lawrence Krauss (part 3 MP3)
• Seven videos from the Biola University conference on God and evolution
• Tim McGrew Interviewed on incidental historical allusions in the New Testament (MP3)
• Is The Basis Of Morality Natural Or Supernatural? Debate Between Richard Taylor and William Lane Craig
Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.
4 comments :
Woohoo! Thanks for collecting these links, Brian! I gave you a plug in my post, so you should see a little inbound traffic.
I would highly recommend the Tim McGrew one. I listened to it today and was thoroughly enjoyed it!
I also enjoyed the McGrew interview. One question: does anyone know how a skeptic would respond to the argument from undesigned coincidences? The best argument I could offer would be to claim that Markan priority could explain any Mark-Matthew-Luke coincidences. Some scholars also claim that John had access to Mark, which would then partially explain the Mark-John coincidences. I might chalk the rest up to chance?
This obviously seems ad hoc to me, but I always like to think out the possible responses to an argument before I use it. Any other ideas?
-Neil
Hi Neil,
I had a similar thought when I heard some of the undesigned coincidences. However, I wonder how much the Mark explanation could solve. If I remember correctly, many of the coincidences in the non-mark gospels add information that wasn't in Mark. Therefore, they must have some information that Mark did not provide in his account. I would be interested to see how some of our skeptical friends answer these as well. It's still amazing to me how they are not used more.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.