Mexico City Debate

The Purpose of the Debate Review and the Charge of Mockery

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Thank you. Welcome to the dividing line on a Wednesday afternoon. We're doing the dividing line today because tomorrow is Thanksgiving and I will have actually two Turkeys in the oven. Actually two turkey breasts.

Or whatever they are. I don't know, but I'll have them in the oven at that time therefore, I will not be here because I'm cooking tomorrow. So we're doing the program today and I'm going to be reviewing some of the sections of a debate that took place in Mexico City featuring William Lane Craig.

The infamous Sherman infamous Shermer atheist Shermer yeah, the NPA infamous atheist Michael Shermer, there we go and. And Richard Dawkins who honestly sounded completely lost in this debate just the essence I got of listening to Richard Dawkins speaking was.

None of the rest of you even belong on the stage with me. I am so much more intelligent than all of you are that if you just listen to me All would be well, that's that's what Richard Dawkins communicates to me.

I do not think there is a more arrogant man on the planet than Richard Dawkins. I don't think there's anybody who who thinks himself more highly intelligent than Richard Dawkins. I really don't but we'll get to that in a moment.

Responding to an Email About Arminianism, Rome, and Truth

I Wanted to Respond to an email that was sent in. I believe this morning yes, it was this morning and I will just say this is from Cheryl and I want to respond to to Cheryl's email today on the dividing line.

It says James. I support you in the issue of arrogant canner. Well, that's good. That's sort of a truth and error issue dividing line right there. I also support you in many areas of theology and with your work with the cults and with Islam.

Whenever I read these I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and I know what it's gonna drop about. I've been doing this for a long time now, so I knew what was coming. I Love the way you do debates with integrity and with sincerity.

Good. I Am NOT reformed at all. But have freedom to support what is truth now. I have to wonder what that means. When you say not reformed at all. Does that mean you you don't believe in any of reformed theology sola scriptura sola gratia any of those things I mean if you're not reformed at all.

Then you'd be a Roman Catholic I would think. But I don't think that Cheryl is Roman Catholic. However, you're mocking attitude towards those who are not reformed on your show today was really bad. This was referring to the Radio Free Geneva yesterday.

I have heard it before and disliked every time you did that but today was especially bad calling non-reformed people as being Romanists and Supporting Rome was below the belt and you're characterizing a non-reformed position as Jesus.

Failing actually mocks the Lord in addition to the Christian faith of your brothers and sisters in Christ. Well, none of that Cheryl is true. I Mocked no one it is not mockery to point out that our minions and Roman Catholics Have the same doctrine of grace and man.

That's a fact. That's not mockery. You may not like it. You may wish that I didn't point it out. You may think it's irrelevant. Okay, make those arguments, but it is not mockery it was not mockery to point out that Norman Geisler will not debate these issues or the Dave Hunt will not debate these issues because They won't so that's a fact.

It is not mockery to point out that they have to characterize their opponents because that's a fact to. Everything I gave you was facts everything I read from you know from the the papal syllabus unigenitus Likewise was factual.

Every quote that I played from Norman Geisler was factual. There was no editing. There was no changing. So where's the mockery? Evidently it is mockery if you point out that our minions have always been viewed historically by the Reformed as Compromising on the very issues of the Reformation and the Reformation Soteriology that our minion ism is returned to Rome just without a Pope.

That's not mockery. That's a fact and so When I hear people asking this question or making this assertion I go, what did you what did you? Understand to be mocking and unfortunately in today's society people identify factual identification of positions as mockery if you happen to disagree with that factual position and.

So there was no mockery and it is not below the belt. I called no one a Romanist. I did not call an Armenian a Romanist. I called the Romanist Romanist. What I said was the Armenians and the Romanists believe the same thing on these issues.

Now if you're confused enough to think that making that edification turns an Arminian into a Romanist then I could see where you would be confused because that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is my Arminian friends who stand opposed to Rome.

I mean, let's think about Norman Geisler put out a book. What was that just last year? And his co-author within a few months of the release of the book became a Roman Catholic. Norman Geisler went to a Jesuit school.

That's where guys PhD in philosophy. These are all facts. That's not mockery. That's just a fact and If your theology is that Jesus tries to save The maximum number of people possible remember how many times how many times did you know genitus?

Say it was an error to believe that Jesus by his grace is actually able to save the elect perfectly it said that was an error and so Characterizing a non-reform position as Jesus failing. Well Cheryl if Jesus tries to save and does not save.

Was he successful or did he fail or is there a third category here? When When LeBron James Shoots a three-pointer from 60 feet out at the end of a game. It either goes in or it doesn't he either succeeds or he fails.

There isn't any third category. And so if Jesus is attempting to save and failing to save Then he's failing to do what he intended to do, right? What's the third category? You have to say well Jesus isn't failing because he's only trying to make men savable.

But that's not a biblical position to take. Is it. I do believe though that the reform proof text I'm going back to the email. I Do believe though that the reform proof text need to be answered and soundly explained in context to refute faulty reform tradition.

That is being worked on. As soon as I read that I Immediately thought of Dr. Sanders. Remember, dr. Sanders 2001 open theism debate at a reformed theological seminary in Orlando and I kept asking pressing him on how open theists understand this and what about this text?

I remember what he eventually said you Calvinist have had hundreds of years to come up with your answers. We're still working on ours. And the fact the matter is these issues have been around for 2 ,000 years and To have someone say well, we're working on that.

We're just now getting around to it. You don't think that all this has been dealt with in every generation it has. Won't say someone might say well. Then why do you keep bringing up because every generation has to think these things through it's worth doing so.

But there's nothing new under the Sun so That is being worked on. Well, I look forward to I look forward To a new interpretation of John chapter 6. I think I've heard almost everyone there is out there.

I've collected him for a long time, but I'd like to I'd like to hear this. But something tells me that there really isn't anything more to be said on these particular subjects. The truth will not mock Calvinist or Calvinism for that would have failed the test of brotherly love by falling into them into the same sarcasm.

Well, I Hear a lot of mockery from Armenians, but given that you misinterpreted firm Factual argumentation as mockery that causes a problem. There is so much good that you offer James if you would stop with the sarcasm the mocking and the misrepresentation of the opposing view.

Oh, wait a minute. I wonder why we didn't get any examples of misrepresentation. And the only thing we were given was well saying that that Jesus failed again logically. How can you say anything other than that?

Unless you say Jesus does not try to save. Then Jesus tries and fails, right? What's the other option? You would surely reach more people with a strong godly love for the brethren reach more people. I thought that was the work of the Holy Spirit of God.

I almost brought up the Letter that was sent to the Apostle Paul. Did you all catch that one by the? Asian presbytery have y 'all seen that one online. I'm sure somebody could Google it. But I said nothing.

Absolutely positively nothing in yesterday's program. That was any stronger in anything Paul said in Galatians, but there are a lot of people that are really Concerned about how strong Paul was there and you know what when I read things like Unigenesis, which is nothing but a bold-faced attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ when I hear Norman Geisler misquoting Matthew 23 when I hear Norman Geisler pretending to respond to what I myself have written and then completely ignoring what I actually said.

You know what? I think you need to point those things out because truth matters it really does and The people who support this ministry they support this ministry because that's what we've been doing for about 27 years now and I don't sit behind this microphone and try to be politically correct and I don't sit behind this microphone and try to Sit here and go.

Okay, but we've got we've got these supporters over here I'm at these supporters over there and if I say this I'm gonna offend those folks I'm saying so I'm like I I am NOT I've said many many times. I'm not smart enough To run everything through a filter like that the people who support this ministry do so because they believe what we're doing is what God's calls to do and They will stand with us and we don't and our supporters will tell you this.

We don't call them up during dinnertime and try to get them to give us more money we don't have a group of people that Tries to build up support bases. There's nothing wrong Necessarily with those things but there's only two of us This ministry and we don't have time to do it and the people who support this ministry want me on the front lines doing what I do and not doing that kind of stuff and so The people that we reach are the people of consents that we're no-nonsense.

We're straightforward. Here's what the truth is Honor the truth. God's Spirit will lead you to the truth. That's how you do it as it is. There are those who turn you off because the mocking just doesn't sound like the Lord Jesus Christ and our requirement to love him by loving Each other well a again Cheryl.

I didn't mock anybody and I'm sorry you interpret truthful speaking as mockery. There are a lot of people that turn me off. I will never ever be a popular person you don't see me on the big speaking circuit because yeah, we address issues that a lot of other people just shy away from and I'm very straightforward and what I have to say.

I'm not trying to offend anybody. But I also Refuse to adopt a postmodern mindset where human offense is the greatest good. In other words, you can't offend anybody. That's the highest standard there is.

Well, you know what? When people abuse the scriptures. When people call themselves Protest call themselves moderate Calvinist when they're anything but a Calvinist at all. I'm sorry I'm gonna point it out.

I'm gonna shine a light on it and say that ain't the case and There are gonna be a lot of people that aren't gonna like it. But Cheryl you're wrong. I didn't mock anybody and so I hope you listen to that.

I think I'll probably drop her a line and When you say it doesn't sound like Jesus Ever read Matthew 23 ever ever read that one show it's it's it's amazing. What's there? Whenever I hear that is I just sort of wonder.

All right. Anyway, we've got folks on Skype and But I need to get to what I said I was gonna be talking about and that is I want to play some segments here from The debate in Mexico City. I listened to this on the way down to Alterna, Tucson this past weekend and The main thing I'm gonna play is Richard Dawkins stuff, but I Didn't even know most of the other people.

I mean Michael Shermer. Yeah, I didn't know most of the people that were involved. There was a Jewish rabbi involved. So it's another one of those, you know bare theism type situations, but But listening to Richard Dawkins was just just amazing.

I his followers Don't recognize the level of religious devotion they have for this man he is the Peter Ruckman of atheism. There are so many parallels between himself and Peter Ruckman and He would be so offended by that but it's the truth and he doesn't see it.

He is so enslaved to his fundamentalist atheism that that I see no evidence of any Recognition there is no self-reflection on his part at all. Now there isn't amongst multi most atheists that I that I listen to that are in leadership positions.

But but Dawkins is amongst the worst really really is so I'm gonna sort of go in chronological order here and just sort of a comment on these things as we go along. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is phone number.

We already got both of our Skype connections taken up. We'll get to You guys as we can here at least you're not burning if you're on Skype, you're not you're not burning long-distance bills for anybody.

Michael Shermer on Prayer, Design, and Teleology

All right, let's just dive in here music. Let's uh, let's start with let's start with Michael Shermer. Let's let's listen to the non-reflective Michael Shermer morning as Thomas Huxley said Richard the good Lord has delivered them into our hands.

I Am the publisher of this magazine skeptic magazine by chance and that's all it is. Our latest issue is on the pseudoscience and nonsense of the whole happiness purpose movement now. Listen to this absurd Understanding of what Christian prayer is supposed to be.

I hear atheists constantly the leading atheists. Constantly representing prayer as if it's basically what you find on TBM pray for something you get it pray for a car. You get it pray for healing you get it.

Theology matters a theology of prayer would be nice here where actually prayer is not your means of of Manipulating God but is the means of communion with God that changes people but you see that Requires that reform theology thing again, which isn't overly popular.

And by the way, I want to add one thing to I forgot to say this to Cheryl. I Don't understand why anybody likes what I do in any area. I am thoroughly reformed in everything I do. Every debate I have with a Muslim every debate I have with an atheist every debate I have with a Mormon.

My defense of the Trinity is Reformed my gospel is Trinitarian. It's all one thing I I've never understood that love how you debate these folks, but I'm debating as a reformed person. I've never understood that it's it's it takes me aback every time someone says I love what you do on the Trinity as if that's somehow separate from.

Because see the same view of Scripture leads to both. It's all one whole cloth. You can't divide it up. Just I've mentioned that same thing here you if you have a meaningful doctrine of God's providence a meaningful doctrine of God's sovereignty and meaningful doctrine of man's creatureliness and fallenness then your doctrine of prayer is not going to be what you have on TBN and So Here theology matters again and listen listen to the atheist misrepresentation that is once you believe That the universe somehow has a design purpose for us and us alone.

That I can have anything I want. All I have to do is wish it pray for it ask for it and it will appear the Mercedes in my driveway the healing of my aunt's cancer or Miracles to appear upon my wish that's just pure nonsense.

There is not a shred of evidence that any of this is actually true. It's wishful thinking. Now and of course you then just take that as being representative of all of Christianity. No reflection as part no accuracy.

But then again, he's not gonna be taken on on much of that. Which maybe why they just continue to make the misrepresentations I don't know and that's the problem of thinking that the universe has some design just for us.

However, I'm a scientist. What what does that have to do with anything? What what did that have to do it? I excuse me logically. What is the connection between? Goofy word-of-faith people. Claiming a Mercedes and design and purpose in universe.

Where did excuse me? I I missed the connection. I'm willing to look at new data. Some evidence. So here's an example. I'm willing to look at new data as a scientist. Do not allow that false assertion of neutrality to ever impact you.

These folks have already decided what data will and will not be accepted and what conclusions are and are not acceptable. Do not even begin to think That they are in any way unbiased guys if you could have God grow some new limbs of amputees of soldiers in the Iraq War.

Christian soldiers with Christian families praying for them to be healed. I Would seriously consider that and changing my mind so far. This has not happened. Not even once. So there you go. Amputees is there there's his standard and if you believe him, then you're saying Jesus was a liar.

Read Luke chapter 16. As as Abraham said to the rich man They have Moses and the prophets if they will not believe them. They will not believe even one row one rose from the dead, which is even more of a trick than growing back a limb.

There's your choice. Apparently God can't even do what amphibians can do in growing new limbs if there's a purpose. Surely we would see at least one Sign like this and yet we have zero again connection here.

Could someone this man claims to be a scientist and by the way for those of you who are wondering what mockery actually is you? Just heard it on Michael Shermer's part about the amphibian crack. That would be mockery.

This man is supposed to be a scientist. But logically what's the connection between the two statements? He just made if there's supposed to be a purpose we'd expect this why? Why can you substantiate this somehow I don't get it.

Okay, so then what is our purpose. We come from stardust hmm. All of the elements of which we are made out of the folks inside stars coalesced into new solar systems like ours and Here we are complex organisms for three and a half billion years.

Life has evolved from one generation to the next not one. Broken chain in this long link. Well except for like species that you don't like go extinct and that's the end of that Darwin said instead of finding this to be depressing as our opponents think this is a grim worldview.

In fact, it's an ennobling worldview. Darwin said when I view all why would a secular humanist even care about making something ennobling? Why would a naturalistic materialist care about making something ennobling fact?

I want to look up a quote. I'm sorry that I didn't do this. It was something was on my list. I didn't do it When Lane Craig in his opening statement quoted Dawkins and I want to find out exactly where this was where Dawkins basically says there is No purpose.

There is no transcendent purpose. There's nothing to the universe. All we are our gene replication machines. That's all we are and Dawkins never denied that. Even though functionally by the end of the debate all the atheists were trying to come up with reasons to have purpose as Schirmer especially did but they never contradicted what Dawkins said and it's sad to be in debates with atheists and Press them on being consistent their own worldview.

I understand the scientific worldview of the naturalistic materialist I understand what it means to be a Gene replication machine and that's that's the only reason you're there. But you see the problem is there are ramifications to being a gene replication machine if if he who has the greatest distribution of his genotype in the next generation is The one who wins if that's what success is and from Darwinism that's exactly what success is then there would be certain behavior patterns that would flow from that and monogamy and loving your wife would not be one of them and Self-sacrifice would not be one of them and love of your children might selfishly be part of that.

But not in the way we understand it. And yet they can't live that way and why can't they live that way? I'll tell you why they can't live that way because they are creating the image of God and They can only suppress so much of that all beings not as special creations.

But as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long ago. They seem to me to become ennobled. It's ennobling to think how fortunate we are to be part of that three and a half billion year long chain.

Why? Why I? Mean is a crystal ennobled by being a part of a three and a half billion year. It's it's a longer chain to be a crystal. I Mean you go right back to you Google you go back ten billion years.

So crystals must be much more ennobled than we are. Just it it's just so sad to listen to to atheists, but let's let's jump to Richard Dawkins here. And let's let's listen to a man who honestly functions as a Messiah for many Atheists today he really does he is a religious figure and he loves it.

Richard Dawkins and the Rejection of Purpose

My colleague Peter Atkins Whose works I recommend to you. I think that it's high time that a scientist won a Nobel Prize for literature and Peter Atkins would be my nominee for that. He was once invited to give a lecture in Windsor Castle Which as you know is one of the homes of the British monarch and at the end of his lecture Prince Philip said you scientists are awfully good at answering the how questions, but what about the why question.

And Peter Atkins said sir the why question is just a silly question.

Now I hear people and it's his. His is always the quietest. That's how I was able to find him in the waveform easiest as he has the least amplitude, but I can hear people laughing. But I'm gonna play a section from William Lane Craig that I really agree with and that is he said the most Reprehensible part of the presentations the atheist was Richard Dawkins saying the why questions are silly questions.

Why is it silly? Well because we don't have answers to many of them. But here's a here's a man who calls himself a scientist saying that the why questions are silly questions. Science wouldn't exist without the why question.

But you see he is so narrow in his thinking so blinded I'd say so much under the very wrath and judgment of God. That he cannot even see how irrational his own statements are and how circular his statements are and how self-contradictory his statements are.

He you're talking about a completely shut down conscience here singed by a constant expression of hatred toward God.

It's just amazing. We humans are obsessed with purpose. No, it seems perfectly natural when we're presented with an object to say what's it for. It starts in childhood.

The psychology. Now check this out. Now check this out to want to know a purpose Is going to be identified here as something we should grow out of. There's the worldview of Richard Dawkins.

Just Deborah Kellerman has investigated this very interestingly with children Offering them a question like why do you think these rocks are pointy. Is it because of some? geological explanation geological cause or is it so that animals could scratch on them when they get itchy and Below a certain age.

I think it's about six. Most children answer with the teleological answer answer with the purpose question Yes, they're pointy so that animals can scratch on them when they get itchy. Children then mostly grow out of that Purposive way of looking at the world, but not apparently everybody and there's laughter and applause now logically.

On any logical or rational basis. Analyze that as an argument. Because children look for purpose and may give simplistic teleological answers adults should not. Anybody up for putting that one into it into a logical paradigm for us.

It's amazing. How can anyone take such a man seriously and yet he is taken seriously all over the place? He has looked to as just as this massive intellect and. Yet that kind of argumentation is just Absurd.

I mean, I mean, it's childish.

It's shocking. In medieval times, I was about to try to work this who's good with iPads I'm trying to get. I am.

In medieval times. No, wait a minute wait, I have to ask a question. Is there a purpose why he's using an iPad? Is is there a purpose for the iPad? Is there a connection between the iPad and maybe the digital presentation?

He was like, oh, those are silly questions. I can't ask them.

Divines would look at living things and see purpose for human benefit in them in the 19th century. The Reverend William Paley thought that the louse was an indispensable incentive to cleanliness. Savage beasts according to Elizabethan Bishop fostered human courage and provided useful training for war.

Horseflies for an 18th century writer were created so that men should exercise their wits and industry to guard themselves against them. Lobsters were given hard shells so that before eating them we could benefit from the improving exercise of cracking their claws.

Another medieval writer thought that weeds were there to benefit us. It's so good for our spirit to have to work hard.

Pulling now. Let me just stop right here again. This is this is called scholastic mockery. There's no question that people have given purposes Within a Christian worldview to all sorts of things that may or may not be true.

But let's just talk about weeds for a second. Shall we I hate weeds. I'm thankful for Roundup, but Roundup's expensive and you have to apply it regularly and it's a bit of a pain, but Is it possible? That weeds have multiple purposes.

Is it possible that there are Means that I'm sorry that there are purposes God has for creation in mankind's experience That transcend or are in another category than Specific purposes, for example most the time weeds and the kind of underbrush that we have in vegetative systems is a Well, I I'm pointing out my own my own creation viewpoint here, but Evidently for Richard Dawkins has no purpose there is no purpose in universe at all, but we recognize that in the ecological cycle these things function to preserve soil and to prepare Grassland for greater things shall we say like a forest?

That after a devastating fire. These are the thing first things that spring up and they help to preserve the soil and they then in their death help to fertilize The soil and in the ecological cycle we see these purposes, but is it possible?

That there are purposes beyond that. Well, if there's a God that there would be or at least there could be. But he doesn't even allow for that and so you look at just one aspect of things and say oh. But we know that there's a materialistic purpose as if the two cannot exist side by side bring them up.

Now It's not difficult to see that such people would also have found purpose in the physical world in. In Mountains, what's the purpose of a mountain? What's the purpose of a stream? We humans love to see purpose everywhere and it's one of the great achievements of Science, I think especially Darwin, but other scientists as well to show that the Impulse that we have to see purpose in anything Doesn't work and he did it not with the easy things like mountains I mean essentially any fool could see that mountains don't have a purpose.

He did any fool can see that mountains don't have a purpose. They of course are very important meteorologically, but you see for Dawkins Meteorology is just simply a massive fractal equation that has no purpose at all from a Christian perspective.

To a man created in the image of God. The mountains testify of the majesty of God. I am rarely more moved to consider the greatness of God than when I Contemplate mountains and in Colorado or I remember when I flew into Italy and we flew over the Alps.

Oh my What what beauty what grandeur now, he would say it's just silliness to something that I've been conditioned to do Because he he represents Such a low view of man and such a low view of creation.

I'll be honest with you I may have opportunities next year to Debate some fairly well-known atheists again where we are in in actually in negotiations with Christopher Hitchens folks again. I Don't like doing it.

I've told people this I've told some folks I my you know, I I give it my all because I know that it benefits people of God, but I Do not enjoy interacting with atheists. I just don't people. People are amazed that I would rather interact with a Muslim because sometimes that's a considerably less Wide-ranging discussion, but you know someone Who can be? So foolish and that I'm using the biblical term.

They're so numb to their own nature So diminishing not only of God's glory, but of their own humanity. More power to those who are really into doing that but it is it is very difficult for me to do it is.

It was it is more difficult for me to Listen to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens Than to do the study I had to do to write the same-sex controversy. I Find it so apprehensible so offensive so Demeaning to my own spirituality to my own Enjoyment of God's creation to have those voices in my head that I just don't like it I just don't like it and If the if the the debates that may take place next year do take place.

I'm gonna be pretty honest with you my Desire right now is that that would be the last atheist debating I do Just I just I don't like it it's just it is Just the way it is. So I decide I'd mention that.

He did it with living things and living things on the face of it have purpose written all over them. We look at a bird's wing. An engineer looks at a bird's wing. An albatross wing say and sees that it's perfectly designed for.

The particular way of flying that albatrosses have swifts have a different way. You look at an eye. You look at a heart you look at a kidney everything looks designed. The Reverend William Paley himself Who was one of the earliest one of the most coherent I should say advocates of this point of view Elevated the living world as being the most important place where you can find evidence for as he thought a deity.

You don't look at astronomy he said look at living things, but what Darwin did. Now listen to this. That this folks.

This is as religious a Presentation as Anything you will hear when I preach. At the Phoenix Performed Baptist Church is coming Sunday. I'm preaching both services. This man is just as religious in his worship of his deity.

Listen listen to what this man said was to show that even the worst case even the most difficult case That's the living case has a perfectly rational simple Explanation you do not need To resort to the idea of a designer.

That was an astonishing intellectual achievement astonishing something as complicated as an eye. Something as complicated as a heart. Even a brain who would have thought? That by the laws of physics unaided Unviolated just filtered through this brilliant process.

Oh, did you catch that?

Brilliant process the laws of nature. He's saying it with this hushed Reverence this brilliant, but what do you mean brilliant? How can that word even have meaning in a naturalistic materialistic world worldview?

What do you mean brilliant? It's not brilliant. It's not beautiful. It just is no purpose no direction no and no nothing of.

Natural selection evolution by natural selection. That the blind laws of physics line could produce the illusion of design illusion as Complicated and as persuasive as we see in the living world. Well our colleagues on the other side have probably mostly given up on the living world.

That was their happy hunting ground. That was the best place for them to operate as paleo recognized so they've been forced back now into places like the origin of the origin of the universe and. They like to point to the origin of the universe and say well science can't explain The Big Bang or science can't explain where the laws of physics come from.

You're just about to hear the atheistic statement of faith. Physicists are working on that. That's what scientists do. They don't lie down and pathetically say oh we don't understand it so God did it.

Scientists actually work on the problem. They set to work they roll up their sleeves and they work on the problem. Just trust us. We are your leaders. We are scientists. This man is a high priest.

He's a science priest. You can hear it in his voice and you can hear when people respond to him that his his the mockery and the denigration all flows from him his Fundamental conviction. Why won't you listen to my authority?

I am a scientist. Listen to me.

One day physics will answer those deep questions one day. One day have faith. And even if it doesn't even if physics doesn't answer those questions. What on earth makes you think that religion can? Thank you very much.

Well, there you go.

Why do people think that that man is is just Incredibly brilliant. I do not know. I did say I'd play this one. Maybe we'll play some more of this next time I need to get to our callers, but I did want to play this one quick clip and then we'll go to our callers.

I Appreciate what what William Lane Craig said in this rebuttal?

The most reprehensible position represented in tonight's debate is Richard Dawkins claimed that why questions are just silly. These are the deepest Existential questions that human beings can ask and refuse to refuse to ask such why questions is to reduce human being to mere Animals, which is of course exactly what professor Dawkins believes.