Hello, Thank you for the reply. This'll be the 2nd time that I'll try to respond to one of Dan's presentations. I have to admit to you straight away, that I'm just a regular bloke who left his faith on 9-11-01. And I'm a self-professed FanBoy of Mr. Barker (in the same way that I like Paul McCartney as a songwriter). I do not worship Dan, nor do I agree with everything he says. I think Mr. Barker won the debate by showing that There Is NOT A God Who Speaks. But then again, anyone (or, no-one) could've gone up there on stage and pointed that out. There is no god. And until proven otherwise, this is the null hypothesis. The Christian side would have won if God would have actually spoken during the debate. If I recall, one of the first things Dan said was "if there IS a god, why are we still having this debate?" In other words, IF God does speak, he's doing a poor job of communicating. I don't think either debater addressed the actual topic: "...God Who SPEAKS." Who ever said God speaks at all, anyway? When God "speaks" in the Bible, that's metaphor, right? If not, does it speak human-developed language? Which one? Or, does god speak all languages? Does it speak Ancient Hebrew? Did it speak thru Gabriel to Mohammed? What does it sound like? Does it have a British accent? Is God able to make sure that all translations of the Bible (see the word "Almah") read correctly, and coherently? With over 30,000 (so far) mutually exclusive Christian denominations alone, the odds that anyone has the "right religion" are pretty low. Obviously, even the debaters, themselves found the wording of the topic to be ridiculous, I think that's why Dan focused on the reliability of the Bible (the foundation of Richard's faith). And that's also why Richard immediately moved the goal posts to make the topic read: Is There A God, Not In Reality, But Philosophically? I can go down each of the 2 debaters points, but the fact that Richard did NOT prove that there's a god that speaks, makes Dan the winner. Burden of proof is on the positive assertion. Thank you for your time, Ron
Ron, what a thoughtful comment. We appreciate the time it took for you to do that. The points you have made are just a couple of reasons why we made this documentary, The God Who Speaks. We hope that, while you may not be a Christian, you'll find the film insightful and informational. If you're interested, the trailer is on thegodwhospeaks.org. Thanks for the respectful dialogue!
The God Who Speaks Well, thanks, I guess, for the reply. I agree that MY SIDE of the dialog was respectful. But, avoiding my questions, then sending me to an obvious "Yay, Jesus!" film, that I'd have to pay to watch, is disrespectful to me. But, then again, I didn't really expect any answers from you, because I don't think you have any answers, and I dont think you really care about people. Thanx, anyway for your time. Ron
Hey Ron! Yeah, you're right- as an average joe and not a Bible scholar or even someone as educated as yourself, I don't have the knowledge to respond to your points. The film does, however, contain people who are much more capable of answering you. Truly, it is a great resource, but of course I'd say that, right?! haha Thanks again, Ron!
This gear analogy is nonsense. He says god is substantial existence itself, while simultaneously stating that god doesn’t have substance [non-spacial and non-temporal]. The analogy would be more accurate if we imagine the first gear is a non-gear who’s essence inexplicably turns all other gears.
Hey Richard, HOWE come you only employ red herrings and semantics to try to make points? This is what someone does when they have NO logical arguments to stand on.
The presentations by religious apologists sound more like word salads as time goes by.
Another victory for Dan. Richard must've had a hard time untying himself from that pretzel he twisted himself into.
In your opinion, what were Dan's winning points? Thanks for commenting Ronald!
Hello,
Thank you for the reply. This'll be the 2nd time that I'll try to respond to one of Dan's presentations. I have to admit to you straight away, that I'm just a regular bloke who left his faith on 9-11-01. And I'm a self-professed FanBoy of Mr. Barker (in the same way that I like Paul McCartney as a songwriter). I do not worship Dan, nor do I agree with everything he says.
I think Mr. Barker won the debate by showing that There Is NOT A God Who Speaks. But then again, anyone (or, no-one) could've gone up there on stage and pointed that out. There is no god. And until proven otherwise, this is the null hypothesis. The Christian side would have won if God would have actually spoken during the debate. If I recall, one of the first things Dan said was "if there IS a god, why are we still having this debate?" In other words, IF God does speak, he's doing a poor job of communicating.
I don't think either debater addressed the actual topic: "...God Who SPEAKS." Who ever said God speaks at all, anyway? When God "speaks" in the Bible, that's metaphor, right? If not, does it speak human-developed language? Which one? Or, does god speak all languages? Does it speak Ancient Hebrew? Did it speak thru Gabriel to Mohammed? What does it sound like? Does it have a British accent? Is God able to make sure that all translations of the Bible (see the word "Almah") read correctly, and coherently? With over 30,000 (so far) mutually exclusive Christian denominations alone, the odds that anyone has the "right religion" are pretty low. Obviously, even the debaters, themselves found the wording of the topic to be ridiculous, I think that's why Dan focused on the reliability of the Bible (the foundation of Richard's faith). And that's also why Richard immediately moved the goal posts to make the topic read: Is There A God, Not In Reality, But Philosophically?
I can go down each of the 2 debaters points, but the fact that Richard did NOT prove that there's a god that speaks, makes Dan the winner. Burden of proof is on the positive assertion.
Thank you for your time,
Ron
Ron, what a thoughtful comment. We appreciate the time it took for you to do that. The points you have made are just a couple of reasons why we made this documentary, The God Who Speaks. We hope that, while you may not be a Christian, you'll find the film insightful and informational. If you're interested, the trailer is on thegodwhospeaks.org. Thanks for the respectful dialogue!
The God Who Speaks Well, thanks, I guess, for the reply. I agree that MY SIDE of the dialog was respectful. But, avoiding my questions, then sending me to an obvious "Yay, Jesus!" film, that I'd have to pay to watch, is disrespectful to me. But, then again, I didn't really expect any answers from you, because I don't think you have any answers, and I dont think you really care about people. Thanx, anyway for your time.
Ron
Hey Ron! Yeah, you're right- as an average joe and not a Bible scholar or even someone as educated as yourself, I don't have the knowledge to respond to your points. The film does, however, contain people who are much more capable of answering you. Truly, it is a great resource, but of course I'd say that, right?! haha Thanks again, Ron!
When those verses are read aloud it's chilling.
Howe does Richard have a Phd? So incoherent.
This gear analogy is nonsense. He says god is substantial existence itself, while simultaneously stating that god doesn’t have substance [non-spacial and non-temporal]. The analogy would be more accurate if we imagine the first gear is a non-gear who’s essence inexplicably turns all other gears.
Debate starts at 5:56
Thanks Isachar! Should've done that myself!
Hey Richard, HOWE come you only employ red herrings and semantics to try to make points? This is what someone does when they have NO logical arguments to stand on.
Thanks for commenting, Terry!
Quoting Bill Marr at a seminary... Lol. I think he got a courtesy laugh from a few people.