Panel debate on the existence of the Christian God and if it matters

This panel debate is on the existence of the God of the bible and if His existence matters to the world. This panel style conversation involves Christopher Hitchens, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Douglas Wilson, and Jim Denison. I think this panel discussion is one of the best for any person who is new to arguments for and against theism because the listener is hearing the best of the best from both sides. The only negative point of this debate is that the moderator involves himself too heavily in this discussion, which is really, really, really, annoying.

Enjoy!

Free content on moral philosophy

For debates, definitions, book reviews/recommendations, and lecture mp3s check out click here. It will take you to apologetics315; an excellent site for audio. 

For in-depth encyclopedia articles on moral philosophy covering a wide scope of moral topics check out this; you'll be taken to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's all totally free content. You won't find video or audio though, only written content.

Glenn Peoples is an excellent, up-and-coming moral philosopher. So I'm including his blog in this list. Click here to read his work on moral philosophy.

Stand to Reason is a good source for commentaries and articles covering ethics. Click here to jump over there and start reading.

Below are some debates on morality and God.

Is God necessary for morality? Bill Craig Shelly Kagan debate

The format for the night was more conversational than a "go-for-the-win" debate. It's enjoyable and helpful nonetheless.

William Lane Craig and James Crossley Resurrection Debate

Since I posted on the Craig and Ehrman debate on the resurrection of Jesus, I thought I would share a much better debate titled "Was Jesus bodily raised from the dead?" between William Lane Craig and James Crossley.

You can download the full mp3 here.

You can watch the video of the debate below.

William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman resurrection debate transcript and audio

Recently, a friend and I watched the debate on the resurrection of Jesus between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. I am familiar with the Christian side of the argument, so I was hoping to hear a good rebuttal to those arguments and understand why the skeptic wouldn't find the conclusion to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to be convincing. I didn't find any of that in this debate.

The debate is interesting because Bart didn't take the route I've heard skeptics take before, e.g., the eyewitnesses were hallucinating, instead he merely said that historians cannot have theological conclusions based on historical evidence. Even before Craig rebutted Bart's "point," I found his statement to be fallacious. Why? I found it fallacious because even though I'm not a historian, I can still draw the conclusion God raised Jesus from the dead based on the historical evidence for that conclusion; it simply doesn't follow that a historian cannot make that conclusion. Can one say it's historical? Not really, but you can make a conclusion based on the historical evidence that points to such a conclusion. Bart didn't make a good case in this debate. He was also overly emotional and would yell in attempt to make a "stronger" case, which only made me yawn. If one is going to yell in a debate, then all that shows me is the speaker knows his argument is weak so he has to beef it up with yelling and rhetoric.

The good thing about the debate is it shows how strong the case for the resurrection of Jesus is. I'm not into knock-down debates because I know there isn't going to be a good exchange of ideas (those are the debates I like), but if you aren't familiar with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I suggest reading or listening to this debate. 

You can find the transcript and audio by clicking here.

Williamson's recap of his debates with Bill Craig and Michael Horner

Recently, George Williamson debated William Lane Craig and Michael Horner in Regina and Saskatoon on the topic: Does God Exist? I haven't watched or listened to these debates yet, though I have listened to Craig's first debate with Williamson (it was OK). Given my impression of their first debate, I'm not all that interested in listening, but I'm sure I will soon. Williamson has wrote a review of both of his debates with Craig and Horner that can be read by clicking here.

His review is an interesting read mostly because he actually admits that his first two arguments are weak! Of course he didn't admit that in his debates. Williamson says that his giving the first two arguments (though admittedly weak) could lead to a more extensive case that everything we know in the universe points to the absence of a god.

This is a good read. You can check it out by clicking on the following link below.

George Williamson's reflections on recent debates

George Williamson vs William Lane Craig debate audio and video

The Appeal of Christopher Hitchens

I really like listening to debates, especially debates that involve Christopher Hitchens and I especially enjoy the debates that he and Dinesh D'Souza have had in the past; there's nothing better than two gladiators of rhetoric duking it out. I'm writing this piece mainly because of a post over at Wintery Knight's blog. Reading that reminded me of Hitchens and I wanted to write a blog post about him.

Hitchens is an interesting guy, a very interesting guy. When he's in a debate, you want to let him talk, not only because he has the cool British accent, but because he really brings out the emotional roadblocks to religion, Christianity in particular. He is a wordsmith, he's intelligent, and he's fun to listen to, even when he's dogging your belief system; he's just a likable guy. What does he rely on in debates? Rhetoric. Strong rhetoric. So strong, in fact, that if you don't know the rebuttals to his assertions, and you're a Christian, you probably would question what you believe.

The emotion of the person is what Hitchens aims for and he's very good at it. Usually, he'll mention the crusades, how he sees God as just standing by with folded arms until his intervention 2000 years ago, God just watches a person get raped and does nothing about it, you know those sorts of things. So, he knows what buttons to hit to trigger your emotions and he will get you to think about these things.

Christopher Hitchens is a very descriptive speaker. He's notorious for comparing God to a dictator, which gives you this image of a very demanding, evil, God that will strike you down for just about anything. This is the kind of assault that Hitchens takes on God, but really it's an assault on Christianity, which brings me to my point that Hitchens attacks religion, not the existence of God. If you break down his case, like Wintery did, then you'll see that he doesn't have strong arguments against the existence of God, rather he argues that religion is evil and a poison to humanity.

An argument that Hithcens gives about God not intervening for mankind until 2000 years ago seems like a good one, but William Lane Craig broke it once (at a panel discussion or in his debate, I can't remember the setting). Craig said stated that if mankind lasts 100,000 years longer, then it wouldn't have been that God waited all that long at all to intervene would it? Chris more or less said, "No I guess not." So, that shows that the arguments Hitchens gives are just emotional. His arguments are not full-proof, they rely solely on rhetoric and performance, which looks good in debate, but when analyzed closely will crumble.

As I said earlier though, I like Christopher Hitchens, he's a great guy and he's fun to listen to. He does well to show the cruelties of religion, but in my opinion, the horrors of man's past just shows that we need a Savior even more. Those events show the sinfulness of man and really don't prove that God doesn't exist, however, those events do show that religion doesn't work, only a solid relationship with God works.

So what is the appeal of Christopher Hitchens? His speaking ability. He's funny, very descriptive, you know a wordsmith. People love wordsmiths, e.g. Gilmore Girls, Seinfeld; those are great shows for the painting of words, so to speak, that the characters perform. I encourage you to listen to Chris' arguments so you can the emotional barriers that people have to Christianity. It's really important to know why people don't put their faith in God so we can answer the questions they have. If we don't, then people will continue to have a barrier to God.

Christopher Hitchens debates here.

Dinesh D'Souza debates and lectures

Dinesh D'Souza, author of books such as: What's So Great About Christianity, What's So Great About America, and others, is a Conservative writer and speaker who once served as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His apologetic method is strong on rhetoric, reason, and historic facts. D'Souza has had debates with many key atheists/skeptics and has defended Christianity well. Check out his various mp3 debates and lectures below.

D'Souza vs Michael Shermer on God, Religion, and Morality

D'Souza vs Christopher Hitchens: What's So Great about Christianity?

D'Souza vs Daniel Dennett: Is God a man-made invention?

D'Souza vs Dan Barker on Christianity versus Atheism

Dinesh D'Souza: A Reasonable Faith: Intellectual Foundations for Communicating the Gospel in American Culture

for more visit bringyou.to's website or here at Wheaton College's resource page.

Dinesh D'Souza at Wikipedia.