I went to a debate between Christian Apologist Matt Slick and L.A. Lawyer and Atheist Edward Tabash at BSU. The debate was extremely interesting and quite enjoyable as well. There were lots of things, however, that didn’t seem to make sense to me at all. When Mr. Tabash was talking he explained that a God couldn’t exist because he/she/it would have to have a brain with synapses and such. His defense for this position was science. Science was basically the entire defense for his side of the debate. Anyways, what I didn’t understand is science as we know it, in some areas, is basically from our observation of something. I don’t believe that you can say that a God can’t exist because it wouldn’t have a brain and therefore it can’t think and claim science backs you up because science, in this case, is a perspective of what we observe. I hope that makes sense. Another thing that I’ve noticed with various Atheists that I’ve talked to and from debates as well is they find a way to use emotion in their debate to sway the audience. For example, Mr. Tabash said that God cannot exist because if He was a good God then He wouldn’t allow suffering and why would a good God allow for his grandmother to have been abused in a Nazi concentration camp. This was something that was brought up quite a bit in his debate. The debate was not on historical issues at all. Granted, it’s sad that happened to his grandmother but why bring it up in the first place? We, as Christians, can say that the Nazi concentration camps and slaughter was a horrible event but we have a moral basis, the bible, to make that call. Atheists get their morals from licking their fingers and sticking them up in the air to see which way the winds are blowing that day. How can they claim that the Nazi camps or anything is bad without a moral basis? Secondly, just to clarify, the debate was on whether or not God exists. Also, in the middle of the argument Mr. Tabash machine gunned questions at Matt and Matt did answer as many of the questions as he could. Some were not relevent to the debate but he answered them anyways. In the closing arguments Mr. Tabash proceeded to point out every question that was shot at him earlier that wasn’t answered. His closing argument should have encompassed what he said in the debate. Therefore, I believe that the atheist lost the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment