Re: #17: DEBATE "Is There Sufficient Evidence For The Christian God"

Link to Cellar Door Skeptics Podcast
Link to Blog Entry for this Event



I haven't really been paying much attention to the atheists' commentaries in a while other than a few videos here and there. In following up with some of the guys I used to listen to, watch, or read, from Atheist Analysis, I discovered that Atheist Analysis was no longer in business. Sounded like there was some juicy controversy behind the scenes but bottom line is the original leaders had a difference of opinion and had to part ways. It's a shame, I think, because atheism should continue to form public associations and disseminate their material far and wide, so more believers are aware of their best arguments, and hopefully develop or learn better ways to respond to these challenges.

So, I was directed to the new forum for some of the former AA staff: Cellar Door Skeptics. Having been reconnected, I was immediately directed to their latest materials. One of them was a debate between Christopher Tanner (atheist) and Aaron Furlong (reformed Christian). It was a rather lengthy offering and so I felt I had to split it between two days of listening. Overall, I think it was generally a good exchange between the two, respectful, well controlled, and it sounded like both sides were honest when they didn't know how to respond.

I just have some brief observations.

1. The resolution for the debate, "Is There Sufficient Evidence For The Christian God?", was weak. Obviously, the affirmative side (Christian) believes there is sufficient evidence, and the negative side (Atheist) believes there isn't. Between Christians that threshold may vary widely, as much as it may between atheists. Perhaps the resolution would have been clearer and more focused to be simply "The Christian God exists", or "The necessary precondition of logic and science is the existence of God as the foundational principle". Furthermore, the Christian admits he is not an "evidentialist", but he is a "presuppositionalist". So, the foundation of the affirmative side is not to give proof for the existence of God, but simply pointing out that no matter what course of logical argumentation the atheist uses, he must necessarily admit to the absolute need for a foundational principle(s) upon which his logical discourse relies upon. Only God can be that principle. 
2. Tanner makes a great case for only believing in things that are true. I would agree. Unfortunately, since he admits that he cannot be absolutely sure about anything, then this must necessarily mean he cannot ever really accept anything to be true. I would suggest he re-think the consistency of his position or adopt a sense of truth being provisional, that is to say, truth is the best explanation we have for now, accepting that at any given moment, it could be disproven and replaced with a new position, which may even be God. I don't know if he means this when he uses the word "true" or "truth".
3. Furlong gave a good introduction to his presuppositional attempt at presenting or defending God. Unfortunately, I feel like he has memorized the method of his art so well, that he had a very hard time when it came to addressing the issues Tanner brought up, which require an evidentialist familiarity to be able to respond to. For example, the validity of the Bible, was discussed. Furlong didn't really spend a lot of time defending his Bible and why it's reliable. On this point, I'd give to Tanner. It's not necessarily Furlong's fault. The problem is the Protestants don't have a good answer. The Catholics have a better answer. If God exists, and Jesus was God, he founded the Catholic Church, and the Church is what is foundational and not the Bible alone.
4. Judaism is a religion, but the word Jewish refers to both an affiliation with the religion as well as an identification with the "Jewish people". It is a race. Hitler was about a pure race, not a pure religion. 
5. Tanner didn't seem to realize the gravity of admitting that he doesn't believe that anything is absolute, and yet he holds absolute positions, for example, God doesn't exist, Christianity is wrong, telling a woman she ought not to have an abortion is wrong, the opposition views to LGBTQI issues are wrong, etc. 
6. There doesn't have to be a contradiction between God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence, with God allowing evil, or not lying. These are not new questions. Philosophers and theologians have been debating these issues for millennia. Those solutions only make sense within a Christian worldview. This issue puts the cart before the horse. 

I'm sure I missed a lot of significant points I wanted to address as I was listening to the debate. Perhaps I'll give it another listen and revise this post.

I look forward to staying in touch with these gentlemen. Perhaps, I'll give in and accept the invitation to address my worldviews or engage in debate.

Laurence Gonzaga

3.19.16

Re: REALITY THUMPER.COM

Link

I decided to visit Reality Thumper because I met these gentlemen just a few weeks ago. I was going to a Starbucks in my old neighborhood after work to meet up with an old friend. After chatting for an hour or so we decided to head over next door for Chinese food. As we walked out I heard my name called out. I was approached by a tall muscular figure and I was not ready to die yet, but realized it was a familiar and most importantly friendly face. He was sitting with his buddy and so after introduction between the strangers I asked what they were up to. They said they were podcasting. On what topic I asked, "On atheism". Well, I said, "I've given talks on that subject recently". Of course I am not an atheist so some of the sarcastic remarks started being thrown. I know how these type of events begin and I know better. So I focused on my old friend. While my friend began to engage the more "lively" of the atheists, I exchanged numerous points of issue that were raised. I think that would have been a great podcast to offer the public, the unscripted and unprepared off the cuff debate between two men with diametrically opposed ideas. An hour went by with two debates going on side by side. I would say my exchange was a bit more Socratic and my counterpart's debate sounded to be more in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. We exchanged well wishes and promised to get back in touch to discuss the issues. They sounded like they would want me to be part of a future podcast. Not so sure about that one. I know a planned gang-atheistic-rape when I see one.

Anyway, so here I am. I texted my friend on where I can find their site. He responded, apologized for it's freshman quality, but who cares? I wanted to hear the content. I listened to it and it was rather entertaining. I must say these guys have a good chemistry and would do well to have a radio broadcast. If I knew I was going to be creating a response website to atheistic presentations, I would have taken notes. I will make the following reactions, however:

1. Questioning is great. I wish more religious folks would grow up knowing what the best arguments against their faith are so they aren't such pansies when they are challenged. Questioning in itself is not proof God does not exist. Faith is a gift, and maybe, just maybe, you're not predestined by God anyway!
2. Religion is not about not letting people be who they are naturally. That's the point! If God is real, and Christianity is true, and Catholicism is the correct version of it, and her teaching is that a man and man or a woman and woman is not morally permissible, and is thus "un-natural", that is to say, not according to nature as God intended, then it should continue to teach it. I get it, on a human level it feels like we are taking away personal freedom. But again, what is freedom? It is not the absence of restraint, it is the presence of the ability to act according to what one ought to do. 
3. Granted, many Christians have a simple faith and so they don't necessarily have the desire or the capacity to gain the tools needed to be able to defend their belief. But, I would say that the reason why people can get sensitive when an atheist mocks or belittles the Christian is not necessity because their faith is so weak, but could be perhaps the total opposite. I will give the example of when someone is making fun of your family or someone else that you care about dearly. Do you just roll with the punches or do you just want to punch that guy in the cheek, turn it for him so you can then proceed to punch the other cheek (Biblical, check it)? No. God is my family, and excuse me if I get emotional or get offended. I for one, try not to let it get to me. If I were an atheist, I probably would be the asshole type too. 

More responses to come. 

May Almighty Dawkins Bless your Day!

Laurence Gonzaga

12.13.14