Here is the final part of my Cal Tech debate with atheist Michael Shermer. In some ways the question-and-answer sessions are the most interesting of these debates, because you never know what to expect. This debate features such bizarre inquiries as "Why does God hate amputees?" That one stumped me for a minute because I wasn't sure what our undergraduate Aristotle was getting at. I've got several more debates with leading atheists coming up this year. You can find the list on my website dineshdsouza.com.
Hitchens is stepping back into the ring with me, and we have a couple of showdowns ahead. We are going to be debating at a large libertarian convention where the audience is likely to be in Hitchens' camp. Shermer and I will put the gloves on again in March, but this time I will have the friendly crowd. We are debating next before 6,000 media at the National Religious Broadcasters convention. At Dartmouth, my alma mater, I'll be facing a local hero, philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. At Harvard I'm debating Dan Barker, head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a kind of atheist ACLU. I'm especially looking forward to my debate Aprl 25 in Los Angeles with Peter Singer of Princeton University. You're welcome to come, but given Singer's relentless advocacy of euthanasia you may want to ask grandma to stay home.
I'd like to report that I'll be debating Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith. But Intrepid Sam has still not replied to my invitation to do both a written and an oral debate. The written debate was Sam's idea, so let's hope he isn't backing off from his own challenge. As for Richard Dawkins, he's still hiding in his closet! Finally I think I know why. I watched a DVD of Dawkins debating theologian John Lennox in Birmingham, and Dawkins got soundly whipped. The man is a terrible debater: halting, witless and verbose. Perhaps Dawkins is avoiding more debates for the same reason that many public school teachers resist undergoing competence evaluations: they know they won't pass muster.
The new atheists thought they had reason and science entirely on their side, but now you can see for yourself in these debates that it isn't so. Some atheists are so prejudiced that they won't admit it, of course. They will continue their delightful blather about what a cretin I am, how I got creamed, how stupid my mannerisms are, why I should go back to India, etc. But their own most articulate advocate, Christopher Hitchens, said publicly before our New York debate that I am one of the most formidable debaters he has faced on any subject. I think Hitchens is a more reliable source than "BornAtheist" or whatever. Besides, when they hurl embittered invective at me, my critics are unwittingly revealing that they are completly bereft of arguments.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 53)
76. To Linda. That is a pretty old article.
Once again the big bang theory now states that time itself began during the big bang. To try to explain it in terms of our physics will not work. Or at least you need to admit it is metaphysical.
Most of the leading Atheist understand this today and support a multi bubble universe theory. Were the physical parameters of each universe is different.
Once again sciences moves and what might be right today could be wrong tomorrow.
pd at 12:57PM on Jan 25th 2008
77. 25. Linda...If you read the Gospels, Jesus responded to faith, not human need.
Shannie at 11:25AM on Jan 25th 2008
________________________________________
I see christian's faith in god everywhere. What I don't see is a bonafide miracle in the last 2000 years.
QUESTION FOR THE ATHEISTS: Anyone a fan of South Park? Ever see the episode where Mr. Garrison teaches the kids evolution? Hilarious. I suspect it's basically how the Christian population understands it. I would attach a link to a YouTube clip, but I can't access that site from this computer. :( Worth checking out if you haven't seen it, though.
K at 12:58PM on Jan 25th 2008
78. "Stop acting as if you have all the correct answers then."
We just have the best answers available based on our current
understanding. Evidence of a supernatural anthropomorphic deity who
created the universe yet has and obsession with the minutiae of your
daily routine is somewhat lacking.
Former Airline at 12:58PM on Jan 25th 2008
79. And religious belief is right...........never.
Linda at 12:58PM on Jan 25th 2008
80. . if that analogy is a little much for your mind let me know. i can make it simpler. cliff your really an ok guy you just so so highly of you. i am getting there though, the lights coming on its going to be close, a real cliff hanger. hang in there-- brian
----
Does anyone else laugh so hard their side hurts when brian posts this nonsense?
mac at 12:59PM on Jan 25th 2008
81. Mark, so until atheists have searched every corner of the universe and never found God, you won't stop believing. Convenient. You can believe whatever you want, and no one can tell you that you're wrong. I must try this.
Oh wait, even if we "proved away all possible evidences of a creator", you would simply state that he cannot be proven away using our lowly human logic. He is grander than that. Still doesn't take away the fact that your assertions don't hold water and that the only "evidence" for intelligent design is found through blind faith.
AndrewV at 12:59PM on Jan 25th 2008
82. Mark 2 points.
1. It's not impossible to prove a negative. It's unnecessary. See the link Linda sent.
2. Your swimming pool analogy is flawed. You can prove there is no water in the swimming pool because you can turn the hose on and see water.
Foot and Mouth Disease; the reason you have to prove there is a god and we don't have to prove there is not a god (biblical god, sorry botts) is that we don't believe in a god. The burden of proof is on you.
Ryan Anderson at 1:00PM on Jan 25th 2008
83. LINDA, and whoever else:
Below is a response I wrote months ago while on one of these blogs. I saved it to a word document. It's a bit long.
-------------------------------
Cpt. Negative asked me how to prove that Big Foot doesn't exist, obviously relating it to people asking atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. This is obviously a near impossibility, which is why Big Foot's existence is still debatable, even though he probably doesn’t exist. You could say the same thing about aliens, and I'm sure that somebody could debate the existence of a a;sdojasdoi, whatever that is.
I admit that just because something is debatable, does not mean it exists. And just because you cannot prove that something does not exist, does not mean that it does exist. But the fact that you cannot disprove its existence allows room for the possibility of its existence, however small that possibility is. Inversely, because I cannot prove that something does exist, does not mean that it does not exist. My inability to provide hard evidence for its existence allows room for its inexistence, but it does not prove its inexistence.
Using the universe as the metaphysical primary in your debates does not mean that the universe is the metaphysical primary. It is still debatable whether there is an alternate metaphysical primary, such as God. You have not definitively proven that the universe is the metaphysical primary. It is erroneous for the atheists to use the philosophy that the universe is the metaphysical primary as proof that God does not exist. That would be circular reasoning. In order to dogmatically say that the universe is the metaphysical primary you must first relieve all notions that other metaphysical primaries may exist. Since it is agreed that it is near impossible to prove the inexistence of God, we must also agree that there is room for the possibility that God is the creator of the universe (just as we must agree that Big Foot could be the creator).
The fact is, it is possible that God created everything, which means that we do not necessarily need to debate from the standpoint that the universe is the metaphysical primary. We can now move our debate into the realm that God is the metaphysical primary. In doing so, we can also discuss eternity, other dimensions, etc. Logically, it is impossible for something within the time/space domain to be self existent, having no cause. If you can prove otherwise, I am all ears. The burden of proof is on you. In my opinion, using an intelligent designer more adequately explains origins. If a being exists beyond of our 4-dimensional Universe, and has the ability to create all that is in our universe, then it is easier to deduct that the intelligent designer created our universe instead of our universe being self existent. I see evidence for intelligent design by the order that is observable in the universe – in inanimate matter as well as organic matter. The order and complexity of our own bodies could be God’s finger print.
This is akin to finding a large footprint in the forest (Big Foot). The existence of our mind, our intellect, our conscience, the order throughout the universe – it is all evidence (although, not definitive proof) of an intelligent designer. If we introduce Occam’s razor to the discussion of origins I would undoubtedly have to choose the notion that the universe has been created by an intelligent designer. With the lack of reasonable evidence to support the notion that the universe exists by random chance, I would even lean toward the notion that Big Foot created everything. A self existent universe in a time/space domain is akin to somebody pulling themselves off the ground by their own bootstraps. It is logically impossible. Furthermore, the order and balance of earth, its proximity from the sun, its rate of rotation, its orbit, the existence of life – point me toward a creator. The existence of a creator adequately explains the existence of everything.
Mark at 1:01PM on Jan 25th 2008
84. ATHEIST
Let me explain why Dinesh comes off as a cretin in these debates. First, his lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory is a huge handicap. But more to the point:
Reply to: With the lack of reasonable evidence to support the notion that the universe exists by random chance, I would even lean toward the notion that Big Foot created everything. A self existent universe in a time/space domain is akin to somebody pulling themselves off the ground by their own bootstraps. It is logically impossible Mark
___________
This is a wonderful example of the difference between
SCIENCE
and
DimWit Christianity.
Because he heard a speech from dimwith Christians like William Lane Craig, or possibly second hand from some other source, Mark says "it is logically impossible."
And yet.... LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
The universe existed for NINE billion years before the earth (and our sun) were formed from material expelled from older stars.
The evidence is conclusive.
It was NOT an act of creation.
It was an explosion. A Big Bang.
Science teaches you to LEARN how it happened.
Christianity teaches you to be a complete fool and post your opinions, based on nonsense you heard from other Christians.
duh.
William Hays at 1:04PM on Jan 25th 2008
85. "1. It's not impossible to prove a negative. It's unnecessary."
If you claim definitively that "there is not God" you must be able to back up your definitive claim by proving the negative.
"See the link Linda sent."
I did
"2. Your swimming pool analogy is flawed. You can prove there is no water in the swimming pool because you can turn the hose on and see water."
How does that make any sense? You can prove that there is no water in the swimming pool because it is the lack of water is evident.
Mark at 1:04PM on Jan 25th 2008
86. "Think of water (or the lack of) in a swimming pool. You can prove the non-existence of water." -- Mark
Mark, which are you: errant or liar?
The fact that the pool is empty doesn't prove the "non-existence" of water. Rather, it merely indicates the ABSENCE of water. In other words, water that already exists (and you know exists) has not gathered in the pool. Although there is no water in the pool, water still exists.
Now, if you could point to that same dry pool as irrefutable proof that gizmettelfork doesn't exist then you might have a sound point of view.
The onus to prove the non-existence of the Christian god doesn't rest with non-believers. Why not? Because they have no dog in that fight. Their lives will go on even without proof of god. Christianity, however, must verify its critical importance to humanity by actually PROVING its canons. Otherwise, Christianity loses its value and will eventually die.
See, without proof of its tenets, Christianity ranks no higher in value to humanity than, say, native American folklore does; or Buddhist teachings, Wiccan philosophy, or a standard Starship Federation policy of non-interference do.
Therefore, the onus of proving Christianity's god rests squarely with the Christians. Typically, though, Christianity fails miserably because science has a pretty good record of debunking many of Christianity's most sacred myths. (Remember when the earth was the center of the universe--according to Christianity?)
Paul at 1:05PM on Jan 25th 2008
87. Is Big Foot going to copy and paste his ridiculous argument ad nauseum, which has already been addressed. Boring. The cosmological argument is moot. BUMP.
Linda at 1:05PM on Jan 25th 2008
88. "As for Richard Dawkins, he's still hiding in his closet!"
I object to this remark for two reasons. First, DD has no business "outing" Dawkins as a homosexual. Secondly, I don't see how Dawkins being gay makes his arguments any more true (or false).
Carole at 1:18PM on Jan 25th 2008
89. Holy logic = wholey logic.
Linda at 12:56PM on Jan 25th 2008
Ha,
Here's more:
Know god= no peace
know peace= no god
mac at 1:10PM on Jan 25th 2008
90. Well said, Paul. And as for the swimming pool? What about the water vapor (humidity) in the pool? what about the H2O molecules on the bottom and in the cracks? The logic is holey not holy.
Linda at 1:10PM on Jan 25th 2008