God or Atheism: Where does the evidence point?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 апр 2013
- Representing the Christian Worldview: Dr. Wallace Marshall
Wallace Marshall is Director of the Charleston chapter of Reasonable Faith, a Christian apologetics organization. He received his M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary and his PhD. from Boston College, where he studied the historical interaction between science, religion and philosophy in the West.
Representing the Nonreligious Worldview: Joshua Deaton
Joshua Deaton is a local secular humanist and atheist activist. He is one of the founding members of the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics & Skeptics; holds a BA in political science from UNCG; trained three years for Christian ministry in Rockford, IL; and has two years teaching experience in New Testament classes at a non-denominational church outside of Chicago.
Wallace's Opening: 1:06
Joshua's Opening: 21:55
Wallace's Rebuttal: 42:25
Joshua's Rebuttal: 54:40
Sides question each other: 1:04:33
Audience Q&A: 1:27:10
Deaton makes some of the best arguments I've ever heard for atheism. Anyone listening to this debate has to be completely ignorant or blinded by cognitive bias to not at least be skeptical of the theistic point of view.
Dr. Wallace Marshall is actually quite good in this debate. His confidence gives him an air of authority. He know enough about physics and science to misrepresent it without being obvious. His quote-mining is refined and not the usual stuff.
42:50 "They (atheists) don't offer arguments against the existence of god."
Atheists don't offer arguments against Allah or Vishnu either, because the burden of proof lies on those who make claims. Would you try to disprove my claim that I have an invisible friend or dismiss my claim until I give you some evidence?
44:00 "atheists ... define what it is you're skeptical about."
Another shifting of the burden of proof. Theists claim to have all the knowledge about god or gods, so they're the ones who have to define god. And if you want me to accept your claims about god(s) then you had best offer some tangible evidence to support your claims. If you cannot, then the default position is to dismiss your claim.
I also want to point out that no tangible evidence of a god was provided by the christian presenter.
The evidence points overwhelmingly away from gods or any magic. Ask any scientists, they have an awesome track record.
Wallace Marshall specifically addresses the issue of QM in the cross examination section by pointing out that virtual particles arise out of the quantum vacuum, which is an energy filled, physical structure (not nothing). Thus it is still plausibly true: From Nothing, Nothing comes.
Is there a repository tor these arguments. I like Johua's speech and would like a copy of it to save off and refer to from time to time. I could pause and write it down but if there's a hard copy somewhere, that would be awesome.
I think it's impossible to argue against an imaginary entity whose reason for existence is: to answer any and all questions that cannot be explained through our current understanding provided by science. For what it's worth, I think it would be a 'better look' for atheists who contribute to these threads, if they tried to remain polite rather than throw abusive remarks at the theist side - which I think only harms the atheist cause.
That said, some theists can be very irritating by their smug belief in the knowledge that their 'imaginary entity' can win any debate. We can only know what is probable, not what we can imagine.
The part at 43:15, were the guy states that he is an "utterly enthusiastic christian" but he's not there to debate about the christian Gods existence, he's there to argue to the existence of any God. I find this stance incompatible. Because if he's as true a christian as he states, then there can be no other God or Gods. So how can he say he believes in something and at the same time claim to offer evidence for something else that very well may totally contradict his initial beliefs? Perhaps Im not thinking it all the way thru, but it just didn't sound logical to me when I heard that.
The Christian guy need to go back to study his debating techniques, seems like he doesn’t want be in the debate I don’t think he was ready for the debate.
I seem to recall the mantra : 54 -
40 or fight. :-)
Another thing I'd like to point out about atheists is, for a bunch of people who don't believe in God they sure do talk about Him a lot. Atheists talk about God more than Christians do. But like I said if you don't want to believe in God for whatever reason, then don't believe in God. Just quit trying to ruin it for those who do want to believe in God.
Even if he doesn't exist?
"Just quit trying to ruin it for those who do want to believe in God."
Then stop telling me he exist. I'm not going to quit pointing out you're believing nonsense for no good reason. I'm sorry reality ruins it for you.
“… or competent”
I would like the point out the atheist side never bothered to refute the evidence of the God side. Instead he went straight for an attack on Christianity. And no Scotty we can't be institutionalized until you repeal the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion. Furthermore I have noticed that when ANY evidence challenging the evolutionist and atheist world view. It is either suppressed by the evolution dominated scientific community. Or the theories are changed to fit facts.
Yes of course the theories are changed to fit facts, thats exactly what science is, a theory on what we can actually observe and measure, if the theory is wrong and does not tally with the reality we see around us (much like religion), then it is adjusted so that it does tie in with the facts to a point where results are predictable, very much unlike religion that ignorantly ignores reality to hold on to old stories, acceptable hundreds of years ago when people knew no better, but not today..
Since there's literally NO evidence for magic sky daddy how is this 2 hours long?
Refuting claims of theists.
Can't these people be institutionalized?
It's almost like, god, jesus, or the holy spirit is speaking through the theist. Haha he is sooo full of it. People who defend the bible bull make me sick. have a nice day yall
What the hell? Why do people who don't know anything about math try to use math to make their argument? The intro argument is terrible. Even if we grant every single bit of nonsense about infinities it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not a god did anything.
The christian guy only repeats Craig's debunked arguments. Lying for Jesus is the only thing they have to offer.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause? Says who? Even if we ignore quantum mechanics (which shows that the opposite is true), there is no way to prove that the premise is true.
Really, I just can't sit through stupid crap like this. The theist guy is making such bogus arguments, so completely failed, right off the bat that I want the eleven minutes I already spent listening to this crap back.
With regard to calling Stephen Hawking a "strident" atheist, I don't think "strident" means what he thinks it means.
This is stupid. You can't even start this without defining God to begin with.