Clutch

Good point, DF. Take a look at the specific prophecies he cites, James, and bring those along to the debate. It might help to actually read, eg, Micah 5:2 aloud -- it illustrates the deliriously selective interpretation required to read these things as fulfilled prophecies.

Toto

For Christians, these debates are a form of professional wrestling. They train for them intensely and use them as organizing events for the faithful. Their aim is not to win over the unconverted, but to put on a reasonable show, and to convince Christians that belief in God is intellectually respectable, that they can hold their own in academia.

I think your best tactic might be to occupy as much of the middle ground as you can: admit that you are not going to prove that god does not exist, but just that there is no evidence that would convince anyone to believe in a god.

Michael Shermer, in his book "How We Believe" looked at the reasons people give for believing in god. The top reason was the orderliness of the universe. I think that another reason that might be unstated is that if there is no god, everything is permitted - so you should at least mention that morality is possible without god, and living a good life is possible without god. In fact, it may be more likely - atheists with a coherent philosophy are not going to count on forgiveness or redemption or someone else to take on their sins.

Godless Sodomite

I don't see how the Problem of Evil or Pascal's Wager have anything to do with demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of god. The PoE is useful in pointing out contradictions of the omnimax variety of deity usually trotted out by christers; and the Wager is used to try to get people to believe in god whether one exists or not. True, you hear the Wager a lot but it's never offered as proof of deity but merely why believing in one is a safe bet.

My advice is to study your opponent's past arguments and offer refutations that render them incomprehensible. Don't forget that it's also a long way from arguing the existence of deity to supposing that Jesus fits the bill. Who is god isn't a useful question at all until it can be demonstrated that god is actually real and exists as something other than a concept. Be aware of special pleading and don't let your opponent try to get away with question begging in the case of god and Jesus that he'd refute if you were speaking of anything other than his imaginary friend.

Good luck!

-Jerry

diana

Lots of good advice, so far.

While I haven't debated any Xns orally, I have debated plenty of them (extensively) online. There are a couple of things I've learned. If this is more simplistic than what you're looking for, feel free to overlook it.

These observations apply to the average Xn--the types you get by the hundreds at debates such as the one you're about to engage in.

They have a very short attention span, particularly when listening to someone who's espousing something they don't want to listen to. Whatever your comments or responses, you'll want to keep it low enough level for the average person to grasp it, and short and sweet. If for a moment you get bogged down in the details or get petty, you've lost them for good.

They have spotty ability to follow logic, and usually, motivation to avoid doing so when it leads to disbelief. While you may consider logic your best weapon, finding a way to make something emotionally real to them is your best bet.

If your opponent engages in ad hominems, ignore them and focus on the argument. Do not return fire, because the audience will most assuredly notice you being nasty to him and completely miss the fact that he started it.

Remember that he is the only person with anything to prove. If he tries to turn anything on you--such as the Big Bang question you mentioned--you might simply point out that whether or not you can defend an alternate theory has nothing to do with whether he can support his. If he asks you about the Big Bang, for instance, he has effectively changed the subject. Do not let him put you on the defensive, because the burden of proof is his. (I emphasize this because it's easy to forget in the heat of the moment.)

For this, for example, I'd simply answer that I don't know what caused the Big Bang, and I see no reason I need to feel like I do. I have no problem admitting I don't know who was the first person in Wyoming to speak French with a German accent, so why should I feel as though I need an answer to "What caused the Big Bang"? And what makes him feel as though he has to have the answer to where everything came from? (How utterly arrogant.)

(I offer that response because I've used it a couple of times and never had a theist continue the discussion at that point. It seems to suck the wind right out of their sails, at least on that particular tack.)

Or just answer with, "I don't know. What caused God?"

(To which the answer is, "God is the uncaused cause," of course. This puts him on the defensive, though, because you now have leverage to point out that if God can be uncaused, then why does the universe need a "cause"? God is, according to all I've ever heard or ever read, far more complex than the universe, yes? Then why does the complexity of the universe "demand a designer" but the infinitely more complex "God" not?)

I restate, for the record, that I've not actually engaged in face-to-face debates, so the recommended tactics may be different. If I'm giving poor advice, I'm sure the seasoned debaters amongst us will step forward to say so.

d

gcomeau

First I have to say the other comments you’re received are dead on, it’s not easy taking on a pro debater… but if you’re going to try I took a look at some of Durston’s arguments… here’s a couple pointers if you’re interested. Bold text is his words.

b) Science now indicates that the universe, including time itself,
exploded into existence out of absolutely nothing. What is your explanation for the origin of the
universe?

He’s wrong. Science does not indicate the universe “exploded out of nothing”. If he tries to claim this suggest that he try getting acquainted with modern science. You can check out both the Ekpyrotic model and the cyclic model that has grown out of it that Steinhardt, Turok, and company are working on, (which still has a lot of work to be done on it… but looks quite promising from what I’ve been able to grasp of it so far.)

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0...icuniverse.htm
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/stei...t02_index.html (Click on the “next”, there’s like 6 pages…)

Basically, whether or not the universe had a beginning isn’t known yet. Anyone who claims that that has been determined doesn’t know what they’re talking about. He won’t like you making people aware of this one little bit, as it kills his cosmological argument before it even gets started.

A Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

1. The universe had a beginning to its existence

Nope. As seen this whole argument rests on an unproven assumption.

If that wasn’t enough…

2. Whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause

Obviously not familiar with quantum mechanics… this is wrong. Period. This argument might have been convincing to someone with a nineteenth century understanding of science, but it’s worthless today.

<snip the rest…>

II. An Argument from Design
In order to support any kind of life at all, our universe had to be incredibly fine tuned.

Really? "Any kind of life at all"? So the person making this claim has knowledge of every kind of life that is possible in any hypothetical universe where the fundamental physical properties are different than those we observe? That is what this claim comes down to, and it’s baloney… “if this or that constant were tweaked by this or that amount then nothing could live.”

What they mean is that WE, as we exist in this universe we inhabit, couldn’t live. What a shock considering we’ve developed to survive in a universe with the physical laws we observe around us. Rather like acting amazed and astounded that when you take a fish out of water and toss it on the beach… it dies! Why, that lake must have been DESIGNED just for that fish… it can’t survive outside of it!

Don’t let him slip this past you or your audience by camouflaging it in all kinds of impressive numbers he’ll pull out and wave around, like “if the expansion rate of the universe differed by just 1 part in 10^55 life would be impossible”… which is bull anyway. They only recently figured out that the expansion was accelerating instead of decelerating for cripes sake… which means it was different by more than that (as you go sufficiently far back in the past) from what they thought it to be when they made this ridiculous calculation… and we’re here, aren’t we?

It also looks like he’s got a bunch of historical arguments… empty tomb, the “did everyone just have a mass hallucination” thing, the whole “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” foolishness…

Point out that these are all false dilemna’s… “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” are hardly the only options available. Also you might ask him to explain why the gospel accounts, taken chronologically, follow a standard pattern of mythological progression and embellishment. Mark, the earliest, doesn’t even mention any witness to a resurrected Jesus! Not one. The original stopped at 16:8… The rock was rolled away from the tomb when they arrived, they are told Jesus is risen, the end. What follows after Mark 16:8 was added at a later date. By the time we get to Matthew (written much later) they arrive just in time to see an angel descend from the heavens, a great earthquake rolls the stone away from the entrance, and then all kinds of people are having one on one encounters with a risen Jesus…

So... did Mark, writing much closer in time to the events in question, not think these tiny little insignificant details warranted a few extra sentences? Did angels and personal encounters with a risen Jesus slip his mind? It’s ridiculous.

Well, that’s what I’ve got for now…just one more thing. Here’s the biggest thing you need to worry about during the course of the debate, it’s a popular tactic among Creationists: He’ll throw out a hundred arguments for God rapid fire and dare you to counter them.

Don’t.

Just pick a few and thoroughly dismantle them. Preferably any that he plays up to the audience as being really impressive or convincing… and let the audience know that’s what you’re doing so he can’t accuse you of ‘avoiding’ anything you let go. If he pulls this tactic you won’t have time to deal with any of his points in convincing manner if you try to address every fallacious claim he tosses out without bothering to take the time to properly support it, and people who use this tactic are counting on you trying to do just that.

My $.02

-Grant

Mageth

II. An Argument from Design
In order to support any kind of life at all, our universe had to be incredibly fine tuned.

One thing that gets me about this argument is that, if god is omnipotent, why is "fine tuning" necessary? An omnipotent god could create life in any sort of universe he wanted, couldn't he? Couldn't god animate 2-dimensional stick men in a 2-dimensional universe if he so desired? So saying that the particular set of conditions in our universe is necessary for life is almost an argument against an omnipotent god.

jmsr

As Mr. Burns would say: "Eeexelent"

Thanks everyone, this helps a lot. I mean it, I really appreciate this.

Well, it looks so far that he concentrates on the cosmological and design arguments. I haven't read through everything yet, but I will! I promise.
I know quite a bit about all the arguments for god's existence (including some sappy emotional ones) and how to refute them, so let me run these by you.

BTW I love that bit about not knowing whether or not the universe began to exist. Thanks. Also, I was planning on getting a dig in on him about 19th century physics with QM if he uses the "nothing...nothing" remark. Oh, and yes I fully understand (and have experience with) theists being unable to comprehend any line of reasoning that runs counter to their beleifs, so to that end, I intend to try to come up with short and snappy counter arguments.

So:

To counter the argument from design (universe):
(short: any universe where intelligent life was possible would have that life think that it was special)
Long:
1) Any universe that exists would have physical laws or not. Intelligent life can only exist in a universe with physical laws, not in a universe of chaos
2)Any universe that exists would be capable of producing intelligent life (of whatever form) or not. If not, no life, no questions.
C)A universe with intelligent life might ask if the universe had been adjusted to make their type of life possible. This is backwards: they are just the type of life possible in that universe
(the fish/lake homily is a good one; mind if I borrow it for this point? It really brings it home here)

As for the cosmological argument - thanks for that bit about us not knowing if it had a beginning or not, I'll check it out to see if you're right - If so, I'll use it.
Anyway, I was planning to point out that the analogy fails because causation is time-based, and time itself came into existence when the universe began. Asking what came before the universe (to cause its existence) is a bit like asking what's north of the north pole (homily again). The question doesn't make sense, unless we presume a background existence in which
the universe exists - in which case they are positing two extra things that exist besides the universe, and they slit their wrists with Occam's Razor...

BTW his problem of evil defense is pretty lame too: essentially, god is all-powerful and all-knowing, so if he wanted to he could 'arrange' things as part of his divine plan such that nothing bad happens and no-one suffers W/OUT interfering with free will (maybe talk about what's logically possible here), and to clinch it, cover purposeless naturalistic evil like a scorched fawn in the aftermath of a forest fire doomed to die in horrible pain after a few hours of pointless suffering.

I probably won't have time for pascal's wager, but I may cover it in my closure.

Again, thanks everyone. I'll be back.
jmsr

KnightWhoSaysNi

jmsr,

Here's a link to the Craig/Jesseph debate. As far as I know, CCC debators usually tend to stick to the same arguments:

Jesseph/Craig debate

Dr. Retard

Unfortunately for this counter-argument, most folks writing on the fine-tuning argument agree that physical life is only possible in a very narrowly restricted range of constants. Durston could report the consensus and cast you as a heretic against science.

I think the best response (in a debate setting) is that God shouldn't need to play Rube Goldberg to get physical life. Why would God have to tiptoe around whatever physical laws govern life as we know it? Didn't he make the physical laws to begin with? If he wants physical life so bad, then why not just mentally boing it into existence -- isn't that the way he supposedly did it with the universe itself? It's crazy.

It's like surviving a suicide machine due to a one-in-a-trillion fluke in the machine, when there's a big OFF button available. Maybe some brilliant, stealthy person interfered with the machine. But why the hell? Why not just use the OFF button? (This analogy is too charitable to the theist, but it highlights the response well).

There are other problems with this argument (why would God want physical life anyway? what's so special and astonishing about physical life? how the hell are we supposed to make these probability estimates?), but they might be too subtle, and so unpersuasive in a debate setting.

I think this is the right approach. Going outside of space and time is weird. You can make it very simple -- there are three salient alternatives:

(1) The universe has no cause.
(2) The universe has some unknown mechanical cause, operating outside of space and time.
(3) The universe was freely willed into existence by an immaterial mind, subsisting outside of space and time.

This kalam cosmological argument derives every bit of its force from intuitions of weirdness. But, look, all these options are weird. If Durston wants us to choose (3), instead of (1) or (2), then he needs to give another reason. Because (3) is at least as weird as (1) or (2). If an uncaused universe looks crazy, if an transcendent impersonal cause looks crazy, then a transcendent spirit, somehow possessed of the ability to conjure up universes by mere fiat, looks like lunacy to me.

Durston doesn't rest his defense on free will. He rests it on moral skepticism -- we can't know whether God is justified, because we can't look at the big picture. He just smuggles in 'free agents' as a value judgment of what God has to work with.

So, first, note how artificial Durston's system of morality is. You can do all sorts of nasty things, you can ruin people's lives, you can cause terrible suffering, but he thinks it's all OK, so long as A > B. But this isn't how morality works, and even the most diehard utilitarian would probably agree. You can't ruin peoples lives, you can't cause all sorts of suffering, on the contrary, you must respect people. Durston's defense seems plausible only because it takes for granted this caricature of morality.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, note how crazy his moral skepticism is. He says, because we can't know the far-reaching consequences of bad events, then we can't judge them as truly bad. But, why then, stop a rape in progress? For all we know, this rape will somehow lead to a bounty of good. We can't see into the future. So, it's OK to let the rape happen or to interfere, but neither way is more reasonable, because you don't have enough info. But this is, of course, nuts. We don't have to see into the future to know that rape is bad, and that any divine agent who lets it occur is probably a shit.

Finally, no one here (I think) has brought up Durston's moral argument. He will almost certainly use the argument. Morality is a big sore spot for atheism, when it comes to public relations. Any theist debater who wants to win will ride the argument for all its worth.

I would respond with the Euthyphro dilemma again and again: If God's will is what makes things good or bad, then God could, if he wanted to, make rape good and pleasure bad. This is nuts. This isn't how morality works. But, if things are good or bad, apart from God's will, then God is unnecessary. Why bother with God, when morality is beyond his control? This problem is old hat in philosophy, of course, but the audience needs to hear it and they need to understand it.

And I wouldn't take any position on meta-ethics -- objectivism, subjectivism, realism, relativism, nihilism, or whatever. If you defend relativism (or anything close enough), it looks bad. If you defend objectivism (or anything close enough), Dunston will start pressing you for details. I would refuse to play the game. Instead, challenge Durston: what in the world does God's existence have to do with morality? Morality concerns right conduct, good consequences, personal virtues, and so on. Where does the existence of an invisible governor of the world enter the picture? Durston thinks there's something really crucial here, but every important moral philosopher today disagrees (God is just beside the point). What bold new discovery has Durston made?

tronvillain

You know, I was actually a member of the UBC Humanists Society? I remember the debate last year, and I too felt that I could have done a better job. Good luck, and I will see if I can come up with a useful suggestion.