It was awesome to have so many of you in attendance at last night's webcast debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens. Thanks so much for coming out! Also, a special thanks to the Chiappinis for hosting this event and the Brennings for footing the cost of it.
Due to the length of the debate, we didn't have the opportunity for any questions or discussion, so I thought a we might share our comments through this medium. In order to help facilitate things somewhat, I've listed some questions below that I hope will better focus our thoughts and conversation with one another.
1. Which, if any, arguments from Craig did you feel to be strong or convincing? Which, if any, did you regard to be lacking? Briefly share.
2. Which, if any, arguments from Hitchens did you feel to be strong or convincing? Which, if any, did you regard to be lacking? Briefly share.
3. What addional thoughts or questions do you have based on the debate?
Additionally, if you care to respond...
1. How would you rate the debate overall? [1 = "I hated it"; 5 = "I thought it was fairly entertaining"; 10 = "I loved it"]
2. Based on what you already know or have recently learned about Christian apologetics, how much interest do you have in further studying this subject? [1 = None; 10 = A great deal]
1 comments - add yours!:
Highlights: Craig said that A-Theism is a world view. There's more to atheism than simply casting doubt on the existence of the supernatural. You have to construct your own world view and "random" leaves a lot of evidence unaccounted for.
Hitchens said that scientific knowledge replaces theology upon discovery. So for example man didn't require a god of fire once the scientific basis for fire was understood. It's a wonderful argument against polytheism but doesn't compel one to reject monotheism.
Left over comments for me are tied to the immediate experience argument (No. 5). There is SOMETHING that makes order more appealing than chaos and harmony more beautiful than dissonance. Randomness by definition has no answer to that. Eliminate random and you must accept design (designer).
I'll not comment on Hitchen's fixation on genitalia. But it is appropriate to comment on other actions and policies undertaken or established in the name of (a) God. I submit that any action taken by man, or entities run by humans, that is performed in the name of God and yet not Christ-centered will be grounded in the imperfections of human wisdom. The result will be bungling at best and unspeakable cruelty and evil at worst.
I'll rate the debate high, bonus points for pizza and fellowship. Apologetics? It's like candy - too much gives me a stomach ache.
Thanks Josh!
Post a Comment