Physicist and popular author Lawrence Krauss writes that civic questions like those raised by Kim Davis’ resistance to issuing same-sex marriage licenses would be better answered if the law rejected any religious claim of what is "sacred" and stuck to a scientific, skeptical approach. Is he right about either what science says or what the law should say?

The resurrection story is the heart of Christian faith, and also its most contested claim. This episode shows how, using only facts acknowledged by most secular historians, we can give skeptics a good reason to believe that the gospel accounts are true.

Though textual analysis shows that we have accurate copies of the Bible writers’ accounts, skeptics can still accuse the disciples of being unreliable narrators, either through confusion or dishonesty. This episode looks at why multiple attestation, verifiable details, and the testimony of their own actions all confirm the reliability of the apostolic witness.

Once the gospels were written down, scribes repeatedly copied them to spread the manuscripts across the Mediterranean world. Since the original manuscripts are lost, all we have today are some of those copies, yet skeptics point out that they have thousands of mistakes and discrepancies. This episode looks at the science of textual analysis and what it can tell us about what the authors of the Bible actually wrote.

After Jesus’ ascension, the early church remembered his life and teaching through oral tradition for about 30 years before the first gospel was written down. Would that sort of collective memory within a first-century community be trustworthy?

Is the New Testament reliable history? This episode starts a series on NT historicity by looking at what historical apologetics can and cannot accomplish, laying out the four historical stages that bring us to our modern Bible translations, and beginning to consider the first stage: oral transmission of the gospel by the early church.

If God knows the future, is he constrained by his own foreknowledge? Could people, or God himself, choose anything other than what he foreknew? This episode considers whether divine foreknowledge is incompatible with other Bible truths, and, along the way, touches on the importance of humility and faith in apologetics.

The Bible says that God sovereignly controls everything, but also that people make real, meaningful choices. At first glance these doctrines seem contradictory, but are they? We need to remember that free will can only exist in a theistic universe and that there is a difference between a formal and an implied contradiction.

The gospel is only good news if we have sins from which we must be saved, but many today feel that they just aren't that bad. Without a gut-level sense of guilt and moral need, how can we help our neighbors to see their own sinfulness, and therefore their need for a Savior?

If Christianity is true, then angels and other spiritual beings exist. However, skeptics point to the lack of scientific evidence for such claims. Is this a real problem for the Christian apologist, or are unbelievers forgetting that “absence of irrelevant evidence is irrelevant”?