The No Episode
Please make sure to subscribe at:
Magicians Bryan and Karla discuss the trickiness of managing your audience. Not only in picking the right person, but keeping control while on stage. Whether you do close-up or stage magicians, there are some tips here.
Also Bryan inadvertantly makes fun of a deaf girl onstage without knowing. Fun (read embarrassing) times. For the illusionist, magician, or mentalist in all of us.
Shoot us some feedback at Info@bryandrakeshow.com.
So this weekend is something I’ve been looking forward to for a long time. I am going to see Dr. William Lane Craig debate Sean Carroll at NOBTS.
That may seem somewhat dry and intellectual to some, but I’m telling you nothing has strengthened my faith more than studying apologetics and Christian Philosophy.
This debate is like watching Hulk Hogan or Batman when it comes to debates. Dr. Craig is the heavyweight champion of the world of debates and philosophy.
The debate is about the cosmos. The new tv show which is a reinvention of the Carl Sagan show “Cosmos” purports to be an unbiased look at the cosmos, but that unbiased is kinda laughable. After all the first words I’ve heard from the original series and has been restated about the new series is, “The cosmos are all that there is, was , and always will be.”
That’s a weighty statement. Especially since the idea of the statement fails it’s own naturalistic litmus test. After all the laws of logic and other things are not “natural” they are not material, but no one disagrees that they exist. The law of noncontradiction itself is not something that can be empirically tested, but yet it’s real.
We will dive into this further after the debate.
You have no choices in life, but are strictly determined by your genes to do everything you do. There is no free will.
—-Sound a little silly?
See that’s the problem (one of many) with materialism/naturalism. A worldview that denies the existence of anything immaterial borrows from the immaterial an awful lot to try and prove that there is no God.
Today’s issue is the idea that strict determinism (the idea that there is no libertarian free will) is the way life works. Now call me crazy, but I feel like this is something that just falls apart by being alive. We see and experience the obvious reality of libertarian free will. i am choosing to write this post. You are choosing to read (or not) this post. Free will is an absolute self evident truth.
Richard Dawkins would claim that we are just basically meat machines wired to propagate our own DNA. That we exist with an illusion of free will. Now the problem with this is that there is absolutely no evidence for this claim. The idea that we have no free will is counterintuitive.
That being said, it’s not just the atheist that believes this. I am a Southern Baptist. Over the years the SBC has wrestled the great questions of reformed theology. The questions of the TULIP and other Calvin issues. One thing that some Calvinists hold to is also an idea that there is no free will, but rather God causes everything to be.
This raises a huge problem because it makes God the author of sin and utter cause of evil. Now that seems to directly contradict his moral perfection that is in fact a necessary attribute of God.
So who has it right? Is there free will? Am I merely determined to type this without any choice of my own while at the same time believing that I have the free will to type this even though that’s an illusion that is programmed into me?
I find that too hard of a pill to swallow. After all why would David ask God what the results of his choices be? If there is no choice then what would it matter? Is God the author of all things evil because He enjoys some sort of Cosmic theater?
I think not. I think we can safely lean on the idea that we do in fact have free will. In fact I hope you choose to read this and share it. Although it might be better for me if you had no choice in the matter, and shared it with everyone because you were strictly determined to do so….
My schedule is full for the last week of December, but we still have NEW YEAR’S EVE available! If you would like to find out more information about having the Bryan Drake Show ring in the New Year with your students, then give my team a shout. 615-258-4646
Last year, Karla and I did three shows at two different churches for New Year’s Eve for over 1000 students. It was an incredible time of outreach in which we got to share the Gospel with these students who could have chosen to spend their New Year’s Eve doing something else.
This year, I will be in St. Louis on Dec 30th, but can be almost anywhere for the 31st.
This is your last chance to see a Bryan Drake event before my calendar is blocked off for the majority of January (we’ll be waiting on a baby to make her arrival, so I’m only doing dates that are already on my calendar that month.)
Thanks to everyone who supports our ministry!
To some people out there on both sides of the fence, the idea that science and religion are somehow at odds and incompatible. This notion is touted on the Christian side by young earth creationists and on the atheist side by the likes of Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.
They set up a choice that basically says, which one are you going to give up? Science or God?
This is what’s known as a false dilemma. A dilemma of course being a choice between two, and only two, options. The problem is however that these two things are in no way contradictory. In fact they are complementary!
Dr. Lawrence Krauss and Dr. William Lane Craig just had 3 lengthy discussions in Australia on this very idea. What becomes evident though is that on Krauss’s purely materialistic worldview he cannot allow any room for God even if He was staring Krauss right in the face. However it becomes quite clear that Krauss and others don’t intend to actually back up the argument of this dilemma, but instead point out red herrings of “atrocities from the old testament” and a regurgitated genetic fallacy argument. (Basically Christians are Christians because they are born in Christian areas. However trying to disprove an idea by showing how it came to be held does nothing to refute the idea. After all we are born into areas that think murdering children is wrong, yet just because we are born into it doesn’t mean it’s automatically a wrong notion)
What actually becomes clear is that there really is no fight between these two. If people like Krauss who claim to be open minded would allow in ideas and evaluate them before ruling them out a priori, then the discussion might actually get somewhere.
I encourage you to check out the videos of these discussions especially the 3rd dialogue. Check them out at ReasonableFaith.org