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: There Is No God by Penn Jillette

Whenever I have the free time, I read a chapter from The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens. Today I read a very short piece written by magician Penn Jillette. It is chapter 40 in this volume, spans about a page and a half, and can also be read on the NPR site here. Jillette's perspective can be summarized as:

"So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power... So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."

I have to say that I am glad I read this perspective. It's actually refreshing. If I may summarize the perspective for my understanding and I am open to correction if I am mistaken... I gather that Mr. Jillette is saying, let's all just start off with no belief, and then ask what evidence exists to believe there is a being that many call "God". I am actually compelled to sympathize with this approach. But then I started to think about it. The idea that we only believe in things which can be proven through the empirical sciences is a presupposition of empiricism. One of the ideas in natural philosophy is that we have first principles which are not proven, and cannot be proven. I presuppose that there are beings or realities which may exist beyond what can be empirically demonstrated or proven. Then I turn to some philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and then I look to history and sacred theology to fill in the rest of the picture.

Thank you Mr. Jillette, for presenting such a practical perspective pro-atheism. Unfortunately, it's not a good enough case for someone who already believes. 

Laurence Gonzaga

10.18.15

Re: Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I didnt watch the first part of the debate because I know where each is coming from already. I was most interested in the cross examination and the Q & A portion. The two didn't disappoint. I found some inconsistencies in both positions. For Bart he made a lot of effort to show that we don't know what happens after we die, and yet he claims nothing happens when we die and nothing is not something. But he is saying he knows nothing happens after we die. At this point I think it was a clash of philosophical terms. D'Souza on the other hand made a few references to adultery as his choice of bad things people do and we know now, it was a bad thing which he did do. I suppose that is not a flaw in his argument though, although perhaps the credibility of the debater is now in question.

An Agnostic Takes an Atheist to School

 
LINK

I just randomly happened upon this video. I found it to be amusing and sad for the atheist.

Why talk about atheism? (July 7, 2015)

Re: Why I Hate the Phrase: “True Christians Don’t Do That!”

Link to the Article

I actually liked this article. The author raises a good point. Every brand of Christian thinks they are right and others are wrong in some way or another. That's fine. That doesn't mean there is no correct way. The authenticity of one's adherence to the teachings of Christ will be determined at the right time. It won't be me, nor will it be this author. The author writes, "There is no way to determine which denomination is following the bible the correct way. There is no one correct way to follow Christ. If there was 40,000+ different denominations wouldn’t exist." That is a presumption. There was one group once upon a time, then there were two and then more. That was because groups started to degrade the original teaching of one church. The Church, made up of fallible and broken individuals can make mistakes and they have at times. That fact does not negate that God exists and that he established a church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Laurence Gonzaga
6.16.15

Re: Cursed are the Meek, for They Dream of Being Enslaved

Link to Article

1. You can't just take one passage to make your point. Obviously, not all Christians have been, are, and will be, meek. But it would be convenient to make the author's point that Christians are only made up of gullible ignoramuses. 
2. The idea that a bunch of men with power came together and cooked up the Jesus story and then managing to impose that on an entire group of people to systematically enslave their minds is rather unlikely. I'm not sure how you could even begin to prove such a theory other than simply asserting it as fact.
3. The author writes, "They believe those obviously made-up fairy tales because when they were very young they were taught not how to think but what to think, and were warned on pain of unimaginable eternal torment never to doubt what they were taught." If it were that obvious then how does one explain how Christians become atheists. IQ doesn't magically change because a person get's butt hurt and now has a philosophical axe to grind against religion. Atheists also become Christians or religionists, so how does the author explain that? Maybe they lose IQ points, as a result of PTSD perhaps. 
4. This article was nice poetry. Perfect for all atheist conspiracy theorists. 

Laurence Gonzaga

6.16.15