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 7 of 53)
91. "Why does God hate amputees?" That one stumped me"
What a bizarre choice of words for this particular article .......
JerryC at 1:12PM on Jan 25th 2008
92. "Mark, so until atheists have searched every corner of the universe and never found God, you won't stop believing."
Actually, I think you would have include searching beyond our 4 dimensional universe...
Don't you think it is a bit "universe-centric" to think that the only dimensions that exist are the ones that we can perceive? Look, we are bound by 4-dimensional logic, therefore we cannot comprehend existence beyond our 4-dimensional realm. We can APPREHEND existence beyond our 4-dimensional realm because of the way dimensions beyond our own interract with our dimensions. This is why man has classically pondered eternity and other such things that cannot be defined by us in our 4-dimensional state. We ponder them because we see evidence for them, but we cannot explain them because they are beyond the realm which we can comprehend.
"Convenient. You can believe whatever you want, and no one can tell you that you're wrong. I must try this."
You do it everyday with atheism.
"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."
Yeah, I pretty much said that above, except not in such simplistic terms.
"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."
There are many evidences.
1. Existence
2. Universal Order
3. Cellular complexity
4. Intellect
5. The human experience
Mark at 1:13PM on Jan 25th 2008
93. Mark; you can difinitevly prove there is no water IN the swimming pool. However, we all know that water exists. God on the other hand...
You are comparing apples and oranges with your swimming pool analogy.
Ryan Anderson at 1:16PM on Jan 25th 2008
94. brian,
Is the only negative thing you can say about Bill Clinton is that the man enjoyed a good BJ? Why are you so obsessive about it? Has it been that long for you?
K at 1:17PM on Jan 25th 2008
95. So Mark, God exists BEYOND 4-dimensional space, yet YOU have experienced him, AND AND AND...the best part...you don't have to lift a finger to prove it to the rest of us!
AndrewV at 1:18PM on Jan 25th 2008
96. "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."
Really Linda? It's that easy?
The self-existent universe argument is moot. BUMP.
Then remind me, darling Linda, in your transcendent wisdom and in your gentle spirit, please remind why my point is moot...
INSTEAD OF JUST ASSERTING THAT IT IS...
My Goodness, are you people that looney??? You think you can make a claim and just say, "yours is moot."
Weirdness
Mark at 1:18PM on Jan 25th 2008
97. ATHEIST
Reply to: 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.
__________
More dimwit stuff.
The rate of rotation, its orbit..... are explainable IF you look at how it began.
The process of fusion inside a star.... combines protons, neutrons and hydrogen atoms... in a set process... to form heavier elements.
Then, those heavier elements are thrown out of the star. Perhaps in a solar flare, but more likely during the destruction of the star itself.
Slowly, over millions of years, the gravity between those particles causes them to move together... to form our planet. The earth.
The rotation of the earth.... in part... comes from the energy with which the material was expelled from the star.
LINK: The nebular theory maintains that 4.6 billion years ago, the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud. This initial cloud was likely several light-years across and played host to the birth of several stars.[7] Although the process was initially viewed as relatively tranquil, recent studies of ancient meteorites reveal traces of elements only formed in the hearts of very large exploding stars, indicating that the environment in which the Sun formed was within range of a number of nearby supernovas.
Stellar nebula or protoplanetary disks have now been observed in the Orion nebula, and other star-forming regions, by astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope. Some of these are as large as 1000 AU in diameter.[3]
As of November 2006, the discovery of over 200 exoplanets has turned up many surprises, and the nebular model must be revised to account for these discovered planetary systems, or new models considered.
....planetary migration.... planets must be able to migrate from their initial orbit to one nearer their star, by any of several possible physical processes, such as orbital friction while the protoplanetary disk is still full of hydrogen and helium gas.
In 1975-1977, after the discovery that He and Ne inside meteorites are always accompanied by isotopically anomalous Xe, Kr, and Ar, while no He nor Ne is inside meteorite phases that incorporate isotopically normal Xe, Kr, and Ar (Manuel and Sabu 1975, 1977; Frick 1977; all cited in Manuel and Hwaung 1983[5]), two academics claimed that
.
/
*** the solar system was formed from the heterogeneous debris of a single supernova ***
(Manuel and Sabu 1975, 1977; cited in Manuel and Hwaung 1983:p9[5]), with
**** the Sun accumulated in the core of the supernova,****
**** the iron meteorites and the cores of terrestrial planets formed from elements synthesised in the hot stellar interior, ****
and the outer planets and carbonaceous phase of chondritic meteorites being formed from the only region that could contain low-Z elements, ie the cooler outer zone.
The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is known as accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar, which initially formed by direct contact into clumps between one and ten kilometres in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals), of roughly 5 km in size gradually increasing by further collisions by roughly 15 cm per year over the course of the next few million years.[17]
The inner solar system was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals which formed there were relatively small (comprising only 0.6% the mass of the disc)[7] and composed largely of compounds with high melting points, such as silicates and metals. These rocky bodies eventually became the terrestrial planets. Farther out, the gravitational effects of Jupiter made it impossible for the protoplanetary objects present to come together, leaving behind the asteroid belt.[18]
Farther out still, beyond the frost line, where more volatile icy compounds could remain solid, Jupiter and Saturn were able to gather more material than the terrestrial planets, as those compounds were more common. They became the gas giants, while Uranus and Neptune captured much less material and are known as ice giants because their cores are believed to be made mostly of ices (hydrogen compounds).[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
_________________
__________________
Until you've done the research into HOW a supernova....or a nebula.... you can't explain the specific details of planetary orbits. But never say it's logically impossible... because it isn't.
William Hays at 1:19PM on Jan 25th 2008
98. "Mark; you can difinitevly prove there is no water IN the swimming pool. However, we all know that water exists. God on the other hand...
You are comparing apples and oranges with your swimming pool analogy."
OK, point taken. I can also prove that there is not a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater in the pool, which may or may not exist.
But regardless, just read what I wrote about proving a negative in the long post.
Mark at 1:22PM on Jan 25th 2008
99. Oh, BTW Mark, your comment that "You do it everyday with atheism" is just petulant.
My lack of belief in God asserts nothing. I don't demand that anyone search every corner of the universe. All I ask is that they demonstrate the proof of God that they say they have found. Its not so hard.
AndrewV at 1:24PM on Jan 25th 2008
100. Can an atheist please explain to me the self-existence of existence inside of a time/space domain?
Mark at 1:24PM on Jan 25th 2008
101. "OK, point taken. I can also prove that there is not a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater in the pool, which may or may not exist."
Can you prove he doesn't exist if he's invisible and omni-present and everyone insists he's real?
K at 1:27PM on Jan 25th 2008
102. The funny thing is, Atheists, is that I have said over and over that it is impossible to definitively prove the existence God. Yet you still ask me to. I don't get it... I am agreeing with you that I cannot definitively prove the existence of God. There are many things which cause me to believe in His existence, but not definite proof (for the 3rd time).
Look, I'm sorry if somebody of faith hurt you so badly that you now project your hatred onto all people of faith. But it's time to screw your heads back on straight and start thinking.
Mark at 1:28PM on Jan 25th 2008
103. ATHEIST
Reply to: 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.
________________
Since he has debated mostly Christians...
It's NOT a compliment. It's all relative.
The least dumb of the dumbed down... is still an insult.
William Hays at 1:29PM on Jan 25th 2008
104. The fact stands that there is much evidence to support intelligent creation.
xxx
you have a very loose concept of what 'evidence' could be. It certainly wouldn't support a common law court decision as has been shown you, much less turn into something publishable in a scientific journal.
It may be a quaint little anthropomorphic metaphor but it is as limited as your ability to think about your statement in light of 21st century scientific knowledge.
I don't mean you specifically, I mean anyone.
Science once again does not deal in metaphor. We can walk through the illustration of Kékule and the smoke ring-benzene-cyclohexane illustration again if need be, but if all you have is metaphors and scripture, you have much to learn and nothing to add.
Evolutionary science has gone far beyond Linnaen taxonomy since introduction of PCR. ALL arguments from creationists' points of view not only try to dispute Linnaean taxonomy, they attack it metaphorically.
None of that has anything to do with evolutionary science. Darwin has no more to do with cladistics than Newton has to do with Witten.
If you are going to continue your flat-earth assault against evolutionary science, you'll have to frame your arguments against cladistics using actual accrued data from peer reviewed sources and that isn't possible for any of you.
This is literally miles over the heads of most if not all of of you, so again you have only magical incantations and magical metaphors and no argument that would withstand the rigors of scientific peer review and publication. And many ad hominem assaults based on pure frustration for perpetually going against the grain of humanity's accumulation of scientific knowledge. I wouldn't want to be perpetually ridiculed either, but the gap between fundamentalism and reality widens by the microsecond.
If you can't understand the physical chemistry needed to understand cladistics and molecular genetics, your arguments are no more convincing or relevant than babbling in tongues or eating the mutilated flesh of your savior or kissing a rattlesnake or killing pigeons or whatever magical rituals your sect of christianity practices. It's just your personal version of ooga booga.
Also if you are still stuck on steady state pre-inflationary universe, you need to have more understanding of the Standard Model. If all you have is preacherbabble, you're stuck. Preachers don't study molecular genetics.
Again, this isn't a metaphoric study. It requires familiarity with incremental mathematics, physics, molecular genetics and cellular physiology among numerous other disciplines. It's very hard and not many of you would qualify if you wanted to.
That's just the way of the world, Either you have the education to make out the science or you're on the outside. If you are, all you have are metaphors, rituals and incantations, but you have no idea how silly it makes you all look to keep arguing against nineteenth century science in the twenty first century.
Clif Kuplen at 1:31PM on Jan 25th 2008
105. ATHEIST
Reply to: 102. The funny thing is, Atheists, is that I have said over and over that it is impossible to definitively prove the existence God.
_____________
Who CARES?
The evidence is conclusive. There is NO God.
of course you can't prove there is a god IF God does not exist.
Get with the program, Mark.
NINE billion years. There is never going to be ANY logical theory that life on earth was the result of an act of Creation.
William Hays at 1:31PM on Jan 25th 2008