Douglas Wilson debates Dan Barker on the subject: Does the Triune God Live? By the way, AiD has a running critique of Barker's Bible misrepresentations and misinterpretations. Also, you can hear James White's critique of this debate here.Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
[HT: The Apologetic Front]
25 comments :
This was a great debate. I love to hear Dr. Doug Wilson. In my opinion, he shut Barker down.
Oh goodie... Dan Barker. Still new to this guy, but I normally like him.
Lee
PS
What we really need is a transcript so a good discussion on these debates can be had... any ideas?
Lee,
I would recommend checking out the links to AiD in the post. They will acquaint you with Barker's ways. Unfortunately, when he is called on his errors, he just keeps on using them.
Hi Brian,
I would recommend checking out the links to AiD
Do I really need to go over to that blog? The last time I was there the discussion was very poor and the arguments worse.
They will acquaint you with Barker's ways. Unfortunately, when he is called on his errors, he just keeps on using them.
I have heard that said of many people... but you have persuaded me to look (I will just try and to comment)
Lee
James White also gives a critique of this debate here.
Most be a great debate with all these critiques everywhere...
I look forward to hearing it when I go to work tomorrow.
Lee
Yeah, James White is also debating Barker at the end of this month. Should be a very good debate.
A very good debate from Dan, but Dougie was just damn right scary.
He believes because he believes in the bible - if the bible says it, that good enough for him. Killing babies is good if the bible says it so.
Tell me that doesn't scare others here?
Lee
Lee,
On what basis do you use to judge whether something is right or wrong?
Lee,
What standard do you use to decide whether something is right or wrong?
Hi Truthseeker
What standard do you use to decide whether something is right or wrong?
Ah, that old chestnut :-)
Probably the same as yours if you were honest, so can you please also answer your own question so I can be sure :-)
In your reply could you give me an example of something that is always right, and another that is always wrong? (If this is something that you believe)
I will give my answer as best I can to your question now (so I am not seen as avoiding the question)
Something is probably wrong if it causes harm, pain and unnecessary suffering.
Something can be good if it causes happiness, well-being, a warm fuzzy glow inside (without breaking the previous 'rule' of creating harm. pain and unnecessary suffering)
I've came to this idea of what is right and wrong via my genes, evolution and environment. (Basically, I blame my parents)
It isn't perfect, and is forever improving and evolving - so I am happy to change it if you can provide something better.
Many thanks
Lee
This is a frustrating debate to listen to. I was really interested to hear an actual rebuttal to the "Reason doesn't work without God" argument.
Instead, Mr. Barker decides that, no, thank you, he doesn't really want to talk about that, so he goes after a set of arguments that Mr. Wilson isn't making. If this were a high school debate, Wilson would have won by a mile.
Matthias wrote:
This is a frustrating debate to listen to. I was really interested to hear an actual rebuttal to the "Reason doesn't work without God" argument.
I say reason doesn’t work without the invisible blue unicorn – prove me wrong :-)
Can you how silly such assertions are?
I don’t think there is anything to rebut
Wilson main argument seemed to be as follows "I say A, therefore B is wrong"
Lee
Lee said: "I say reason doesn’t work without the invisible blue unicorn – prove me wrong :-)"
Not a problem Lee, all you had to do was ask.
If the unicorn is invisible, then it isn't blue. Ergo, there is no invisible blue unicorn.
Now that you have been refuted, let me encourage you to stop pretending that this is a child's game and encourage you to give your atheistic account of logic and reason. If you have no intention of doing so, then just pipe down and let the grown-ups talk.
Hi Semper Paratus,
Nice try - but you fail.
You see, the invisible blue unicorn is only invisible to our human eyes.
He is really blue, just we cannot see Him in a physical way
Special pleading? Probably, a bit like some other arguments I hear.
Oh, and please stop with the insults if you want a discussion or add a smilie face so I know it is a joke :-)
Lee
Nice try - but you fail.In order to "fail" me, you first have to establish that you are the teacher and I am the student. No offense, but I'm afraid your teaching credentials are in question.
You see, the invisible blue unicorn is only invisible to our human eyes.
He is really blue, just we cannot see Him in a physical wayThe color blue is not an invisible quality. It is perceptual in nature. Nevertheless, I like what you have done here, equivocating on the word "invisible" so that it no longer refers to an attribute of your unicorn but instead points to a defect or limitation of man's visual factulty. It is always fun to watch an atheist undermine empiricism.
Special pleading? Probably, a bit like some other arguments I hear.
If you don't mind, in the future I would like to be the one to refute you. Its just not as much fun if you do the work for me.
Oh, and please stop with the insults if you want a discussion or add a smilie face so I know it is a joke :-)Sorry about that. I didn't think you made your unicorn analogy with a straight face. I have to remember that some people think the sort of reasoning evinced above is actually sophisticated, deep stuff. As Francis Bacon put it: "...a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Hi Semper,
I wonder what an invisible quality is? Our we talking about just our eyes, then most of the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible to us – but I doubt we mean that…
No matter, you are right that I use the invisible blue unicorn in jest – it is just as meaningful in my mind to insert the great invisible blue unicorn into a statement that was “Reason doesn't work without < insert mysterious unknowable being here > " argument that was presented.
Sorry I missed your humour - I am just never clear when someone is also replying in jest when they talk about philosophy or gods.
It isn’t in my training…
Anyway – good to have all that clear now :-)
What was it we talking about again?
Lee
I guess I am going to have to listen to this debate myself. I guess I am little late in joining this talk.
So if I believe in the Almighty Blue Unicorn, but I can't "show" him to you, I am just goofy?
Hi thesecondtolastword
So if I believe in the Almighty Blue Unicorn, but I can't "show" him to you, I am just goofy?
Well, do you think I should also believe in the Almighty Blue Unicorn or if I don’t will I burn in Hell?
You are free to believe whatever you like - so long as it doesn't hurt anybody.
Lee
Lee said: You are free to believe whatever you like - so long as it doesn't hurt anybody.
Says who?
Oh no! There is no hell. If you don't believe in the Almighty Blue Unicorn he won't hold that against you. The ABU created you and he created your mind and your mind's ability to activate "reason". He does not expect you to believe him because he knows what your limitiations are as a human.
According to the edicts set forth by ABU's teachings, "Believe me if ye shall, if not, it is understood. Seeing is believing and without sight there is no belief. If you don't believe in me I understand. You cannot see me as I am not visible. Since I am not visible, how can I expect you to see me? You will be allowed into the spiritual corral nonetheless. Thus, sayeth ABU."
Am I still goofy for believing in ABU?
I just listened to this debate finally, and it was such a vibrant, action-packed debate!!! Man Doug Wilson is so witty, had me laughing the whole way through the debate.
The whole "reason, morality etc doesn't work without God" argument simply cannot be equated with, as Lee put it, "I say reason doesn’t work without the invisible blue unicorn – prove me wrong :-)"
This is because according to Christianity, these things are necessarily part of God's divine nature; God being the greatest conceivable being with regards to omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness and love.
Since these things are necessarily part of His nature, they were not created by him and they are not above him and so fit perfectly and beautifully with his very identity.
Now, the whole unicorn thing is something that atheists throw out when they simply haven't given this argument enough thought. Please, seriously and honestly think it through.
A unicorn, even if it was to exist, is a contingent being and so cannot have logic and morality part of its 'necessary' nature as it is not a necessary being. Being composed of matter and existing in time makes it vulnerable and dependent and therefore below these components and is, to the fullest part, governed by them.
Furthermore, the transcendental argument doesn't JUST show how these things fit exquisitely into the picture with the Triune God at the centre; it also shows how these things CANNOT make sense in all other pictures. In particular, with regards to the atheist, materialist view that says that the brain and all of reality is simply physical matter and everything therefore is nothing more than a group of atoms fizzing around. One person's atoms fizzing around is no more legitimate than another person's atoms and so there is no objective basis upon which we can object to Hitler's particular atoms or even find out whether one bunch of atoms is fizzing in the correct way, ie believing truthful propositions. Of course, on this worldview morality, reason and truth are simply made up for convenience, since they are not physical things and according to materialism, everything that exists is physical.
Also, Lee, the point that Matthias was trying to make when he said that, "I was really interested to hear an actual rebuttal to the "Reason doesn't work without God" argument", was that Barker completely refused to explain how to properly ground logic, truth claims and morality on the materialist view of everything being simply atoms bumping around. He also did not adequately show how the Triune God of the Bible does not ground these things perfectly.
Unlike the debates with Hitchens, this was a waste of time for Wilson. Dan Barker was ill-prepared to the point of being embarrassing. He strikes me as the type who's accustomed to tossing out cheap sarcasm to a willing audience and receives so much applause, he's convinced it must all mean something substantial.
"Unlike the debates with Hitchens, this was a waste of time for Wilson. Dan Barker was ill-prepared to the point of being embarrassing. He strikes me as the type who's accustomed to tossing out cheap sarcasm to a willing audience and receives so much applause, he's convinced it must all mean something substantial."
this is what i've been trying to say for a couple of years and couldn't put the words together. Thanks
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.