All Episodes

May 10, 2024 30 mins
Introduction
- Chad and Brian discuss their favorite and most memorable debates between Christian apologists/philosophers and atheists/skeptics

Chad's Debate Picks
1. James Crossley vs. William Lane Craig - Was Jesus Raised from the Dead? (2012)
   - Highlights Craig's case for the resurrection based on postmortem appearances 
   - Contrasting styles of young Crossley vs distinguished Craig
2. Jeffrey Lowder vs. Frank Turek - What Better Explains Reality: Naturalism or Theism? (2016)  
   - Appreciates Lowder's formal case for naturalism reminiscent of Craig
   - Admires the cordiality and clash of Lowder's logic vs Turek's rhetoric  
3. Christopher Hitchens vs. William Lane Craig
   - The "prizefight" lead-up and spectacle surrounding this legendary debate
   - Contrasts Craig's arguments vs Hitchens' emotional appeals
4. Braxton Hunter vs. Matt Dillahunty (2019)
   - Hunter exposes issues in Dillahunty's epistemology 
   - Effectively argues for Kalam cosmological argument and argument from free will
5. Craig vs Francisco Ayala - Is Intelligent Design Viable? (2013)
   - Craig debates an award-winning evolutionary scientist
   - Craig has to think on his feet against unfamiliar arguments from Ayala
6. Chris Date vs. Dale Tuggy - Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?  
   - High-level, rich, respectful debate between able defenders of their positions
   - Highlights Date's ancient bird imagery argument for Christ's deity
7. Paul Draper vs. William Lane Craig
   - Craig debates a formidable philosophical adversary
   - Interesting to see Craig on his heels against some unfamiliar arguments

Brian's Debate Picks  
1. William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins
   - The famous "put that in your pipe" moment where Craig lists what science can't explain
2. Norm Geisler vs. Paul Kurtz on John Ankerberg Show  
   - Admires Geisler's rapid-fire responses to a breadth of objections

Bonus: Worst Debate - Jeff Durbin & James White vs Dr. Clark & Dan Ellis (2020)
  - Dr. Clark engaged in bizarre antics like throwing books, demanding miracles
  - One of the most cringeworthy debates they've seen

Find links here: https://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2024/02/some-of-my-favorite-debates.html
================================
We appreciate your feedback.
If you’re on TWITTER, you can follow Chad @TBapologetics.
You can follow Brian @TheBrianAuten
And of course, you can follow @Apologetics315
If you have a question or comment for the podcast, record it and send it our way using www.speakpipe.com/Apologetics315 or you can email us at podcast@apologetics315.com
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Hello, and welcome to the Apologeticsthree fifteen podcast with your hosts Brian Auten
and Chad Gross. Join us forconversations and interviews on the topics of apologetics,
evangelism, and the Christian worldview.At last, we meet for the
first time, for the last time. All right, So I am going

(00:24):
to begin, Brian, I guesswe'll toss it back and forth. If
you will, I'll share one ofmine, you share one of yours.
I know I have a few morethan you do, so of course you
can comment on mine. As Isaid earlier, I picked the debates for
various reasons. So what I'm goingto do is just say the name of
the debate, the topic, andthen I'm just going to discuss it briefly
and why I picked it. Sothe first debate I picked, and they

(00:46):
are not in. You know,it's not my number one favorite debate.
It's just happened to be the firstone I thought of. But it is
my favorite debate on the resurrection,and this is between James Crossley and William
Lane Craig. It was in twentytwelve and it was entitled was Jesus Race
from the Dead? Now? Oneof the things I love about this debate

(01:07):
is, first of all, JamesCrossley is just very likable. He is
a distinguished scholar on the topic.He also holds that Mark was written early.
I think he dates it around fortya d. Which is pretty great.
But he holds to the hallucination hypothesisthat the best explanation of the post

(01:30):
mortem appearances of Jesus was hallucinations.Now, what I find most memorable about
this debate was, of course thecordial discussion how knowledgeable both men were.
And one of the things that wasinteresting in a clash of styles is Crossley
at the time is this young,cool looking professor, and then you've got

(01:51):
Craig, who is your older statesman, you know, dressed up very sharp
as he always is, and sothat was an interesting just stylistic observation.
But I remember in the debate Craigusing the fact of the post mortem appearances
to make a really good case forthe resurrection on its just with that fact.

(02:13):
And I was really impressed with thatbecause typically you hear more of a
minimal facts or something like that,where hey, we're going to look at
these you know, some people usefour or five six facts and we're going
to talk about what the best explanationis. Craig started that way, kind
of this minimalist case that he makes. But then when they really got into
the discussion on the post mortem appearances, I thought Craig did a really good

(02:37):
job of using that one fact almostto be pretty persuasive. And so those
are some of the reasons why Ijust love that discussion. And I've gone
back and watched that debate I don'tknow how many times. Yeah, it
was funny about these debates, isthat you remember them way better than me?
Oh yeah, yeah, Like it'snot it's not as vivid in my

(02:59):
mind. I suppose if I wentback and watched you know what, maybe,
because when you watch a debate,do you watch it or do you
listen to it? I do both. Sometimes I watch and sometimes I listen.
Yeah, sometimes I'm watching and listeningand then other times I'm walking around
the house and doing stuff and listening. It depends on how into the debate

(03:20):
I am, and also whether ornot I've heard it before, right,
right, So you know, kay, what about you? What do you
got? What did you get?Okay, well I'm only got three.
I thought I'm going to yammer toomuch about this seven things, and it's
more like you've got a lot.I know you're going to mention, so
I must. I'm just gonna goout what I think are just classics,

(03:42):
right, and I see that there'sone that's on your list, So I'm
gonna I'm gonna say William Lane Craigversus Peter Adkins as one of the absolute
classics, Peter Adkins being this oldergentleman who's so craig. I suppose that
I have another word that comes tomind, crotchety, a crotchety, grumpy

(04:08):
guy, and he comes across thatway. You know, in certain different
contexts he seems like you'd be reallya cuddly teddy bear, but in this
one he was just kind of crotchety, and uh, just science is his
whole thing, Like science can doanything. And there was this like,
man, you know this quote referto. Maybe we'll link it to the

(04:31):
show notes, but I just sendpeople to watch William Lane Craig versus Peter
Atkins, and most likely if yousearch in YouTube, you will find the
excerpt of the thing I'm talking aboutwhere he's like, well, what,
what's one thing? That science can'tdo, and William Lane Craig it must
have had like flash cards that he'dstudied for a year, and he's like,

(04:53):
well, I can think of fiveor six different things that science can't
explain. It can't under explain themoral facts that we observe in her.
And he just goes on and onas as he talks about like aesthetic beauty,
mathematics, and then he ends initself and then and then William Buckley,

(05:14):
who's the moderator, says, putthat in your pipe and smoke.
But the whole time the camera issort of like the cameraman must have been
like get a load of Adkins,because you know, the switches over and
as you see each time the cameracuts to Peter Eggins and then it goes
to a wide shot, it's almostlike he's shrinking down into his seat in
slow emotion, like he's just staringblankly. Please God let this end.

(05:40):
Yes, But at the same timeit was like the biggest slam dunk,
while William and Craig is just sayingit in such a humble, you know,
sympathetic way. You know, yes, actually, you know, there
are a lot of things that sciencecan't explain, and it was just man.
So that's a classic end, Iagree, you know, entertaining,

(06:01):
but again great defenders of each side, you know, great debate. Yeah.
So my second one is Jeffrey J. Louder versus Frank Turk, and
the topic there was what better explainsreality, naturalism or theism? And that
was in twenty sixteen. One ofthe things I appreciated about this debate,

(06:21):
well, a number of things Iappreciated, I suppose I should say,
is, first of all, Ilove Louder's case that he presents here for
naturalism, which I know sounds strangecoming from a Christian, but it's very
reminiscent. And I wrote this inmy debate review I did of this one.
It's very reminiscent of Craig. Hestarts out with a couple contentions,
he has arguments to support those contentions, and he sticks to those And so

(06:46):
I thought this was a great clashbetween Turk, who's very good at storytelling,
comedy, keeping the audience engaged,where Louder, I thought, really
majored on that logos, those logicalarguments, and so it's a really good
clash between the two and I actuallywrote in my review that I thought they

(07:09):
could learn from one another. Ithought that Turrek could learn from Louder to
present his arguments in a little bitmore formal manner. And I thought that
Louder could learn from Turik in includingsome more rhetoric in a way that is
persuasive and helpful, meaning the storytellingand the comedy and things like that.
And so that's just I think ahigh quality debate. And it's also very

(07:31):
cordial. I mean, even thecross exams are just fun to watch and
you can tell that they're both havinga good time. Here's a shared debate
that's on your list, and that'sChristopher Hitchins versus William Lane Craig. I
promise my third one is in theWalem and Lane Craig one. But he's
just done so many debates that forhim not to have be on the list

(07:51):
of like ignoring so many things atany rate. So Christopher Hitchins, you
know, with at the time,it was like at the apex of his
tour of atheism and stuff was yes, yeah, all the rage, yeah,
it was it was like right inthat hot point, you know that
Justin Brierly would have been talking aboutbut anyway, Christopher Hitchins were wale Lane

(08:16):
Craig. This was like, thisis like the the Debate of the decade
kind of event. He packed outaudience and again best defenders of the positions,
And in this sense, maybe ChristopherHitchins was most vocal, most well
known, most popular defender, mostentertaining and caustic, and he was that

(08:41):
sort of defender of his position.I think other people can make better cases
logically, but as far as persuadingpeople, he can be very persuasive.
But that was a great debate torecommend, I think for people who are
wanting to see a contrast between actuallymaking arguments and making come plaints or criticisms.

(09:01):
It's like Hitchens didn't have a casefor his position. He had complaints
he doesn't like Christianity or it doesn'tlike God. And you know, was
there a point in that debate wherehe's like Creig is says something I'm yet
to hear an argument or something likethat. Yes he did indeed, And

(09:22):
Craig was also very good at pointingout, as he always is, that
none of his arguments were really addressedor torn down if you will. Yeah,
I picked that one, but fora couple of reasons. First of
all, not because it's the mosthigh quality debate nice and I'll talk about
that in a moment, but itled up the lead up to it was

(09:43):
almost like a prize fight, andI really and it was so memorable and
I so that was a lot offun. I also think that this debate
is a great example of someone who'sreally strong on that logos. Remember that's
building up those logical arguments in Craig, and then someone like Hitchens who almost

(10:03):
entirely relied on pathos, these appealsto emotion, and you know, for
example, he always tells these storiesto illustrate the problem of evil. And
this debate is also really memorable tome because I remember that John Mark Reynolds
wrote a book with Phil Johnson,who since passed away, and he talks
about how he was talking to hisown kids. John Mark Reynolds does he

(10:26):
was talking to his own kids afterthis debate between the Hitches. They called
him and Craig and they had thisrich discussion about how Craig clearly decimated Hitchens
when it came to logical argument,but how many people walked out of their
thinking. Hitchens won because of hisswagger and I'm paraphrasing, of course,

(10:50):
the discussion that he has in thebook. And so to me, this
one really illustrates how you've got tobe able to read through the rhetoric and
the appeals to emotion and think,okay, but who's actually making arguments?
And I think you put it wellversus complaints. And I'll freely say too,
I absolutely loved listening to Christopher Hitchins. I thought he was a great

(11:13):
storyteller. He made me laugh.He was one of the only four you
remember, the four horsemen of theNew Atheism, Dennett and Dawkins and Harris
and then Hitchins. Hitchins was theonly one that I actually thought came across
as very charming, very likable.He could be saying things that I sometimes
even would say I found offensive,but then five minutes later make me laugh.

(11:37):
And he was one of those guysthat I felt like I would love
to sit down and have a coffeewith and just have a discussion. Of
course, he would want to havea different kind of drink, but you
know that's neither that's neither here northere. All right, hit me with
another one, Chad, Oh,Okay, oh yes, my turn,
because you started that, so mynext one, and again these are in
no certain order. Was a twentynineteen debate between Braxton Hunter of Trinity Radio

(12:01):
and of course very popular skeptical YouTuberand skeptic Matt Dillahunty, and I thought
this debate really exposed some problems inDila Hunty's epistemology. I also thought that
Hunter did a great job of unapologeticallypresenting the colomb cosmological argument, and he

(12:22):
even makes equip in the debate somethingto the effect of the klamb is not
dead, contrary to what you haveheard. And Braxton also does a great
job using an argument from free willthat again I think exposes some problems for
Dila Hunty's moral positions. And soto me, I've watched a lot of

(12:43):
Matt Dillahunty debates, and sometimes Ifind him interesting, other times I find
him evasive, and other times Ifind him extremely frustrating. I thought Braxton
did the best job of anybody I'veever seen handling Dila Hunty and also holding
Dila Hunty's feet to the fire.And I thought that showed in Dila Hunty's

(13:05):
performance, because he wasn't as contankerousas he can be sometimes, And so
those are some of the reasons Ireally really enjoy that debate. I'll have
to go back and listen to thatone because it's been so long I don't
even remember. Okay, so Ipulled another one out that I thought,
all right, was it a greatdebate? No, never, not necessarily,

(13:28):
but it was memorable, very memorable. And yes, I picked some
of mine because they're memorable. Soyeah, I get Norm Geisler versus Paul
Kurtz on The John Ankerberg Show.Oh, yes, it is very old.
You're going to way back. Butyou know, it was like almost
like Norm Geisler in his prime inthe sense of, you know how Norm

(13:50):
Geisler had this sort of way whereeverything's like a pad answer almost. Yes,
it's almost like, oh, here'smy objection to the boom, here's
my rhyming answer. No, thereare actually sometimes well I'll go back and
listen to Geisler and I'll hear somethingand I can finish what he's gonna say.
Yeah, well, this was justlike he was just so fast to

(14:15):
the draw, with formidable with answers. Now, if I was an unbeliever.
I might think, oh, theseare all just memorized answers, but
at the same time I'd think,like, okay, but they're not bad
answers. It was very impressive inthe sense of his quickness, in the
sense of like what a broad varietyof things were. It almost came across

(14:37):
like no, thought about that onethat's been answered, here's three or four
reasons why next, next, next. It was almost like, you know,
he's just a there's a conveyor beltof objections coming at him and he's
just chopping them up with like GINSUknives. It was just really interesting.
And I remember just hearing like JohnAncherberg, John Kerberg's voice in my head.

(15:00):
All right, well we're back herewith this debate between Norm Geisler and
polker you know, and you hearhis voice and you know, it's like
so eighties or something. I don'tknow when it was, but it's just
got that vibe to it. Butclassic debate. They were debating secular humanism,
Christianity or secutive secular humanism. Andyeah, it was really interesting.

(15:20):
Yeah, yeah, And you knowwhat I'll say about Norm Geisler. I
think I've told you this story beforebut when I probably uh gosh, a
year after I got married, Iwent to a conference just just you know,
to attend, and he was speakingand I met him and he handed
me his card and he said,Hey, if you're interested in coming down
to Southern Evangelical and checking it out, I'd be happy to host you.

(15:41):
And it was one of those thingswhere I thought, yeah, right,
I'm sure you're gonna, you know, host me Norm Geisler, like you
know, all these people that wantto have contact with him or whatnot.
So I reached out and sure enough, he invited me down. Danielle and
I went down. We met atthe seminary, he took us to lunch,

(16:02):
and we spent like two days athis house with him and his wife
and he had other people over.He was the most gracious host, and
of course I was trying not tojust bombard him with every apologetic question that
I could think of, but Idid end up doing that a good bit
and he was just such a graciousguy and signed books for us, and
it was a really good experience.He was genuinely somebody who lived out what

(16:25):
he believed. Yeah. Great stuff. Yeah, so my next one,
and I do want to give akind of a correction for Christians on this,
but let me lay it out.Here is a twenty nineteen debate between
Arn Raw and Michael Jones, andthe topic was is Christianity dangerous? Now,
before I tell you why I pickedthis one, I want to say

(16:48):
that it's not Aaron Raw. It'sArn Raw, and arn is actually somewhat
sensitive to but people still get upto the microphone almost every time and say
this question is for Aaron, andhe's very quick to say Arn. So

(17:08):
if you're going to address him,get his name right, is all I'm
saying. So I loved this debatebecause Michael Jones absolutely decimated arn Raw on
the definition of faith. And arnRaw has been going around peddling this false

(17:29):
definition of faith for I don't knowhow long. That faith is a blind
leap in the dark. Faith isclaiming you know what you have no evidence
for. And Jones showed that historicallythe word has never been used that way,
that it's not you and it's nota proper exegesis of the text,
and it was I will just saya delight to watch, because, to

(17:53):
be honest with you, one ofthe things I meet with an atheist friend
of mine once month for coffee,and one of the things I try to
do is take his position and makea steel man so that I am not
tearing down a straw man or afalse version of his argument. And it
was so gratifying to see this strawman that has been propped up for what

(18:17):
I would say years, just completelyobliterated. And so that is why I
like that debate so much. Ialso really like the debate a lot because
arn Raw, if listeners are notfamiliar, is very very prides himself on
relying on science. He's all aboutthe science. If you go back and

(18:37):
watch this debate and you ask yourselfthe question as you're watching, who's relying
on the science and who's relying onpersonal stories and anecdotes, you are going
to find that it was Michael Joneswho was presenting the science and the studies,
and it was Raw who was presentingpersonal anecdotes, stories and opinion.

(19:00):
And so those are some of thereasons why I love this debate. And
I am just being completely transparent whenI say I found it very satisfying to
see such a false view blown outof the water so beautifully, and Michael
Jones, If by any chance you'relistening, as I told you when we
interviewed you, thank you for that, and thank you Aaron for and Aaron

(19:26):
if you're listening, Oh well,all right, give me the next one.
Okay, So my next debate,by the way, I have three
more. My next debate is andagain, it's like Brian said, William
Lane, Craig is debated so manytimes, so many of the top thinkers
that if you're thinking, gosh,these guys are like Craig heits or something.
No, not really, It's justhe's debated a lot of the best

(19:48):
people out there. This debate wasin twenty thirteen and it was called is
Intelligent Design Viable? And why Iloved this debate between William Lane Craig Francisco
Iala was because two reasons. Firstof all, Iala speaking of that ethos
piece. Remember that's the authority ofthe speaker or their status. Right,

(20:12):
this was an award winning evolutionary scientist, so we're talking one of the top
two or three scientists in the UnitedStates that Craig is debating. And of
course the topic being is intelligent designviable? Or another way to put it
is is you know, they debatedhow to intelligent design fit into science or

(20:34):
does it fit in at all?The other thing I loved about this debate,
Brian, is the framing of thedebate. Craig laid out some reasons
why he thought intelligent design should beconsidered as a scientific endeavor. But then
he took the role of a skepticand he laid out the differences between micro

(20:56):
evolution and macro evolution. He talkedabout some of the reasons that he believed
macro evolution, that he was skepticalof it, but then he said,
but I'm open to it because Idon't think it offers any kind of threat
to the Christian faith. And thenhe challenged Iala to present evidence for macro

(21:18):
evolution, and in my estimation,Illa just utterly failed. Oh it was
pretty bad. Yeah, And youknow, I heard a lot of atheists
commentary say, well, you know, Iowa is not a debater and all
these things. Okay, yeah,I grant that Craig is an excellent debater,
maybe the best debater on the planet. He's definitely up there with them,

(21:42):
right, Okay, of the oneswe know of, Okay, fair
enough. But at the same time, if You're an award winning evolutionary scientist
here, and you're just asked thequestion, can you give me some evidence
for macro evolution? You don't needto be an excellent debater to do that.
I don't remember, right. Hewas given like examples of like dog

(22:02):
breeding and stuff exactly, and it'sMike Wow, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Reminded me of that review that youwrote years and years ago of the
Greatest Show on Earth and you basicallysaid, like, yeah, this is
a this is a beautifully written book, and Dawkins presents a lot of great
examples of micro evolution. But hejust didn't convince me. I should be

(22:23):
letting you give this summary, notme. But he didn't convince me that
that macro evolution has happened, youknow. So those are some of the
reasons why I enjoyed that debate.All right, two more so, My
next debate is the guy we've hadon the podcast now three times, and
it is between Chris Date and DaleTuggy. Is Jesus human and not Divine?

(22:45):
Now, I love this debate becauseDale Tuggy is James White recently referred
to him as the King of Unitarianism. I don't know if Tuggy would wear
that crown or not, but heis certainly the most able defender that I
know of of Unitarianism and the mostable critic of the deity of Christ and

(23:07):
the Trinity. And so this wasbetween Tuggy and of course Chris Date,
and Chris Date was arguing that Jesuswas obviously he was arguing that both Jesus
was both human and divine. Now, what I love about this debate is
the arguments are high, high level. Both men are at their absolute best.

(23:29):
The conversations are rich, and theyare respectful. The cross examine,
the clash and the cross examination isabsolutely great, and it is just a
real delight to watch. I dothink Date one. And one of the
interesting thing, one of the interestingbits in the debate that if you go
back and watch it, there's apart where Chris brings an argument from ancient

(23:53):
bird imagery to the deity of Christ, and he points out that any time
in antiquity when this ancient bird imageryis used, it is always referring to
deity, and of course Jesus usesinvokes this bird imagery for himself, thus
indicating that he is deity and Tuggyhad never heard this argument, and so

(24:19):
there's this point in the debate whereyou can tell Tuggy is just kind of
taken aback by it and a littlebit on his heels. And so anyway,
that definitely is one of the mosthigh quality debates I've ever seen.
And they also did a book whichwhich goes further into the debate for those
of you that want to look intothat. Yeah, I remember when you

(24:40):
mentioned now how much you like thatwhen I went and listened to it and
also found it very interesting. Yes, yes, finally my last one,
And of course it seems appropriate toend with doctor William Lane Craig, who
I think if I were making somekind of Mount rushmore of a if you

(25:00):
will, this gentleman that William LaneCraig debated would be on it. And
his name is the one, theonly Paul Draper. Paul Draper is formidable,
and in this debate you can seewhy it is really interesting to see
Craig debate somebody who has such asimilar debating style as his own, which

(25:22):
is often not the case. Draperbrings out some arguments in this debate that
Craig is not super familiar with Inother words, they're not in Craig's field,
and so this debate features William LaneCraig a little bit on his heels
and having to think on his feet. And so that's definitely a change of
pace because I think Craig is usuallythe aggressor in a debate, and so

(25:45):
this is just two men who Ithink represent the best of the best from
both sides going at it. Thediscussion is rich, respectful, and again
it is interesting to see Craig haveto respond to some arguments that he typically
doesn't have to. You never studied, all right, So that's all your
debates now, Chad, being thedebate aficionado, are there any weird and

(26:07):
wild debate moments you'd like to share? Oh? Man, okay, so
I thought about this too. Ithought it was just this is just kind
of a fun add on what isthe worst debate I've ever seen? What
debate is just so cringe worthy thatyou can't help but to watch it more
than once? Right, there wasa debate that took place four years ago

(26:32):
between Jeff Durbin and doctor James White. Now I am not picking this debate
because of them. They're both presuppositionalists. I'm not they present I think what
is a very good presuppositionalist case asmuch as they can. Then the two
atheists were doctor Clark and Dan Ellis. This Brian was the most bizarre thing

(27:00):
that I had ever witnessed in adebate. Doctor Clark was tossing books in
the trash during the debate. Hewas up walking around. He would demand
that White and Durban show him amiracle in the moment. At one point

(27:21):
he even challenged the audience of Christiansto come up and I believe drink Anna
freeze and said that if they reallybelieved in God, that he would protect
them from the poison. It wassomething that was poison. It may not
have been Ana freeze. And itwas the most embarrassing thing I had ever
seen. Have you ever watched somethingand you're embarrassed for the person, right,

(27:48):
That's what this was like. Andat one point during the cross examination,
he's firing a question at doctor White. Now you know, doctor White
has no problem given it back.And at one point doctor White asked him,
do you want me to answer thequestion? And the guy was like,
show it to me, show itto me, show it to me
like that, and doctor White said, sit down, sir, I am

(28:12):
going to answer the question. Butit was by far the most the strangest,
most bizarre debate I have ever seen. And I felt bad for Dan
Ellis, who was doctor Clark's partner, because although I didn't think his argument
wise, he brought much to thetable. He was at least trying to

(28:33):
have a reasonable discussion. Durban anddoctor White were trying their best to remain
professional, which they did, butyeah, it is an on. It
was a circus of a debate becauseof doctor Clark. So that's definitely the
worst I've seen. Well, thereyou have it. Some of the debates
we recommend. Now these will bein the show notes, so you don't

(28:55):
have to google your googles. Youdon't have to googles, you don't have
to google your googles. Kids.All these debates will be included in the
show notes, so you can checkhim out for yourself and report back.
If you watch a debate and yousaid, hey, I like that one,
send us a message podcast at apologeticsthree fifteen dot com. And if

(29:15):
there's one or two you think Chadmissed and he should have put on his
list. Yes, then call himout. All right, we're going to
see you in the next episode.So thank you for listening. Yes,
thank you Jason for writing in.Thanks for listening to the podcast. If
you have a question you'd like usto address, or just a message for
us feedback good or bad, youcan either email us at podcast at apologetics

(29:37):
three fifteen dot com or leave avoice message for us using speak Pipe.
Just go to speakpipe dot com slashapologetics three fifteen to leave us a message.
And remember, if you include aghostbuster's quote in your question, we
guarantee that we'll read it on thepodcast. We also ensure up to fifty
percent better quality answers. Also,if you've enjoyed today's podcast, please leave

(30:00):
a review in iTunes or the podcastplatform in your choice, and please share
this episode with a friend if youfound it useful. Remember you can find
lots of apologetics resources at apologetics threefifteen dot com, along with show notes
for today's episode. Find Chad's apologeticstuff over at truthbomb apologetics. That's truthbomb
dot blogspot dot com. This hasbeen Brian Aughten and Chad Gross for the

(30:22):
Apologetics three fifteen podcast, and thanksfor listening.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.