Town Hall Debate
Thursday, 29 August, 2002
Well, now I'd like to comment on the debate between Peter Slezak and William Lane Craig but I feel like everything that could be said has already been said (not just by Ben but others). Their point of view is really convincing—that
- Though Craig was the better speaker, Slezak's arguments made more sense (once you understood them) because the premise of the whole debate (“look at the evidence”) was flawed;
- You cannot ever prove that God exists just as you cannot prove that God does not exist—it's a leap of faith (I remember reading about how disappointed C.S. Lewis was when he found that out after being floored in a debate at Oxford);
- Holding debates as evangelistic events isn't helpful and it won't bring people to truly know the gospel. In any case, no one ever comes to know Jesus by being persuaded by logic or reason alone.
But after it all, my non-believing friend said that she enjoyed it, and the subject matter provided some fodder for good conversation. In the end, I think, one needs to nut out these issues for oneself. As Craig said, to find the God of the Bible you must draw near to him in his word and he will draw near to you.
Blinks:
A way of funding writing in the future: pitch and idea and get people to support it.
Place where you can hire play equipment for parties, etc.
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
Hello,
I must take issue with you regarding the debate. I think you will find that many people have been converted by attending these sorts of things - catch the debate between Craig and Zindler - at the end it mentions some conversions.
Finally, I think Craig’s arguments were better. There is no fallacy in the notion of pointing to the evidence. Craig merely took our common logic and opinions about the universe to their rightful conclusions - God. The evidence points - no fallacy here.
Steve
Hi Steve! Thanks for stopping by!
The reason I wrote “Holding debates as evangelistic events isn’t helpful and it won’t bring people to truly know the gospel” is because I agree with Ben’s argument from Romans 1: Evidence isn’t going to convert people; the preaching of the gospel and calling people to repent because they are under the judgement of God will. How else, then, will people change from being sinners to saints?
I’d be interested to know what “clinched it” for those who got converted through attending a debate like that. I’ve never met anyone for whom that’s happened.
As for Craig’s arguments, I think he was making too much of the whole “evidence” thing. There’s no way you can adequately and irrefutably prove the existence of God to an atheist. Craig also failed to address some of Slezak’s points properly. People who know Slezak have said to me that he felt like Craig had been intellectually dishonest because of that and to me that’s not a very good witness.