Evidence for God from Science

.
Another Debate: "Does God Exist?"
Between William Lane Craig and Christopher HItchens (Hugh Hewitt, moderator)
Biola University, April 4, 2009

This debate wasn't about Darwinism, but I thought I'd post it here anyway. Maybe I should make this a debate thread.

I was not able to take notes since the place I sat was unlit. However, I can sum up some things. Craig went through a list of proofs (or probabilities). He had 20 minutes and did a great job, considering: Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments, the resurrection of Jesus, and the immediate experience of God (Craig had provided some printed notes).

Hitchens didn't provide notes. Between the main presentation and the back and forths, three things became clear regarding Hitchens's thoughts. 1) If there is a God, then he is cruel and thus immoral in his creation and/or lack of intervention; 2) Morals are sort-of innate (this whole thing was confused) so we don't need God, or there isn't anything better morally that comes out of religions (this whole thing didn't make sense, since so many people do things that aren't moral); 3) He didn't want to be told how to live by religious people. Religious people were violent and intolerant. And God is (if he exists) the cosmic dictator. The concept of God just came out of our illiterate, unscientific past.

So I guess Hitchens would say that God doesn't exist since his morals are better than God's. That's the gist of it. But Craig did an excellent job in refuting these ideas. It's too bad that it cost $25 to buy the dvd of the debate, but I'm sure that any profits go toward funding the next big debate.

cslewislover wrote:.
Another Debate: "Does God Exist?"
Between William Lane Craig and Christopher HItchens (Hugh Hewitt, moderator)
Biola University, April 4, 2009

Funny you would mention this CS... I actually saw the debate last night at my church via a live broadcast from Biola. That place was packed.. I too thought Craig did a excellent job on it. I don't think Hitchens had very strong arguments. One being that God apparently had set the world to self destruct (like the sun will consume the earth eventually) and was therefore responsible for it, negating free will. Craigs reply I thought was great being that the physical properties may in time end, but the spiritual will live on indefinitely in the new world.

Other items on the table were that man's morals simply evolved over time and that the golden rule was in all religions. Or that all the religions lead to war, etc.. It's the same old atheistic stuff just repackaged in a different way.

G -

That's interesting that your church decided to watch the broadcast! It was packed - sold out quite a while ago. They said 3000 people, then someone said up to 4000. I was up in the balcony section, which had lights, but I guess they figured they'd be too bright so none were turned on (they had TV monitors up there). It was really getting hot up there; I almost left a little early because it was hot and stuffy. I guess I'd like to get Criag's book.

Oh, one thing I wanted to mention, that's sad. Hitchens obvioulsy knows his bible. So when he said at one point that he personally rejects the Holy Spirit, I think he knew exactly what he was saying. Sad.

cslewislover wrote:That's interesting that your church decided to watch the broadcast! It was packed - sold out quite a while ago. They said 3000 people, then someone said up to 4000. I was up in the balcony section, which had lights, but I guess they figured they'd be too bright so none were turned on (they had TV monitors up there). It was really getting hot up there; I almost left a little early because it was hot and stuffy. I guess I'd like to get Criag's book.

I'll say that place was packed.... Hitchens was in the lion's den alright. Did you stay for the Q and A?

cslewislover wrote:Oh, one thing I wanted to mention, that's sad. Hitchens obvioulsy knows his bible. So when he said at one point that he personally rejects the Holy Spirit, I think he knew exactly what he was saying. Sad.

Yeah, looked like his mind was already made up on that. He might know a few things about the Bible, but unfortunately he missed the connections. Also did you notice that he was shaking a lot? I wonder if he had parkinson's or something..

A Christian can fall into all kinds of wrong thinking. Being a Christian, having received the eternal gift of new life through faith in Christ's work of forgiveness and redemption does not immune a believer from being in error regarding his thoughts or actions.

Now, it is notable when a person rejects a substantial portion of Christian belief and then identifies themselves as a believer. While we cannot ultimately judge whether they have been born from above (only God knows) based on this erring direction, we can know they are not fit for edifying the body of Christ through teaching sound doctrine.

Yes, a Christian (and they have historically done so on many issues) can believe in evolution or any erring doctrine. It does not automatically afford us the opportunity to conclude emphatically they are not a Christian, rather that they are in error.

Alex G wrote:Yes, a Christian (and they have historically done so on many issues) can believe in evolution or any erring doctrine. It does not automatically afford us the opportunity to conclude emphatically they are not a Christian, rather that they are in error.

So all theistic evolutionists are in error?

Maybe Alex will define evolution for us and qualify what he categorizes as scientific fact and what is error.

I'm not sure what Alex said that was wrong? Granted, we need a more subtle nuance on evolution and distinguish it from Darwinism to account for the underlying philosophy, but even then, even on the most generous usage of the term, I would agree that all theistic evolutionists are in error. Either theistic evolution is true or it is false. If false, then one errs when they adhere to it. If true, one errs when they do not adhere to it.

Is, then, theistic evolution true? No. It is false. Therefore, those who hold to it, theistic evolutionists, are in error.

Who said what Alex said was wrong? I'm just asking for clarification.

Byblos' question struck me as just a little on the incredulous (sp?) side. And I couldn't tell the tone of your post, Canuck . . . the part about him deciding what was error seemed to have a touch of sarcasm in it? But I could have misread both of you. As the girl on the Geiko commercial says, "It happens to me all the time."

For what it's worth, I think anyone could believe in theistic evolution and not be in error, with God that is. Perhaps the bigger question does theistic evolution best reflect what the scientific communities believe? My answer to that would be no, at least from what I can tell in a college biology book (there is no God that creates). Therefore that perception of science by the public in general and the scientists is in error...

Jac3510 wrote:Byblos' question struck me as just a little on the incredulous (sp?) side. And I couldn't tell the tone of your post, Canuck . . . the part about him deciding what was error seemed to have a touch of sarcasm in it? But I could have misread both of you. As the girl on the Geiko commercial says, "It happens to me all the time."

Well, maybe some clarification is in order on my side then. I'm not a theistic evolutionist. But, I don't presume that anyone who is a theistic evolutionist is necessarily in error. I hold it as possible that God used evolution in the creative process, but as I understand scripture and as I observe the physical evidence, I don't see it as a necessary or even a likely conclusion.

However, I know of Christians present and past who embrace theistic evolution and I don't presume they are "wrong". Neither do I presume the Young Earth Creationists are necessarily "wrong". It's an opinion and while I'm quite comfortable with OEC and a Progressive creationist understanding, I'm quite willing to accept that I may be wrong in my opinion with regard to how God chose to create. Collins and C.S. Lewis are both Theistic Evolutionists whom I respect. One of them is a better scientist than I'll ever hope to be and while I don't see the necessity of conceding theistic evolution, I understand why he takes the approach he does in terms of viewing the science in the framework of his profession and expertise. I think he's constructed a plausible construct that fits the available evidence and seeks not to accept the philisophical position of methodological naturalism.

I think he's gone further than necessary, but I think he's within the parameters of what a sincere Christian can see and believe and I for one, would not disqualify him in the manner I think I heard in the post.

The irony of suggesting the C.S. Lewis should be viewed as in error and disqualified beggers belief. I personally think it's hilarious at times to see how Lewis is at times raised almost to sainthood in evangelical circles. The very people who extol his teaching and apologetics would have to practically excommunicate him from their church if he came to visit if they applied the same standards upon him that they do on others.

Now, I don't know what the poster I responded to meant, although some of this ran through my mind. Rather than assuming, I asked rather than jumping. Your post however gives me an opportunity to dump some of it, so thanks!

Nicely spoken there Bart... For me the main reason I don't except it because I don't think it adequately reflects science. Sure it's possible, but nothing is really written in stone here when it comes to the science. If we could just be truthful with science from the get go, then this forum probably wouldn't even have been created.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The irony of suggesting the C.S. Lewis should be viewed as in error and disqualified beggers belief.

Plus we wouldn't want to tick off cslewislover....

Sorry... Couldn't resist.