Thursday, September 9, 2010

Excellent Debate with Atheists

Today I listened to an excellent debate between Christians and atheists. Shepherd's Fellowship, along with Sye TenBruggencate whom I interviewed in episode 3 of my podcast, debated the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics on the question, "Does the Christian God Exist."

Sye and Dustin do an excellent job of demonstrating that atheists foolishly deny God while simultaneously relying upon His existence to argue against their opponents. They deny the absoluteness of logic while simultaneously insisting that logic disproves Christianity. They deny the absoluteness of the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past) while simultaneously insisting that science disproves Christianity. I highly recommend you listen to this debate, and perhaps consider listening to episode 3 of my podcast in which I interview Sye on the topic of presuppositional apologetics.

Allow me to share one specific reflection upon this debate. One of the atheist opponents denies the absoluteness of logic and attempts to provide an example of a failure of logic. He says the building he is in is not moving because it is grounded into the earth, and yet at the same time is moving because the earth is spinning. He says, therefore, that the building is both moving and not moving at the same time, and therefore the logical law of non-contradiction is not absolute.

This is utter nonsense. The logical law of non-contradiction says that A cannot be both A and non A at the same time and in the same way. The building is not moving relative to the people who are also standing on the earth, but it is moving relative to the universe in which the earth is spinning. But the building is not both moving and not moving relative to the people inside it. The law of non-contradiction remains standing, and it is no surprise that atheists are illogical when this is how they understand logic.


  1. You also need to remember that disproving P does not prove Q, which is the bedrock of Presuppositional Apologetics

  2. Wow, Paul. Thanks for visiting my humble blog! You'll find--if you haven't already--that I'm vastly unqualified to debate this issue. I'm unlearned, inexperienced, and brand new to this apologetic. Sye and others are probably in a better position to respond to your comment.

    That having been said, can you elaborate on your comment? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

  3. Nevermind, Paul. I understand your point, since you made it at greater length at Mike Felker's blog, The Apologetic Front. You're saying, "By disproving all other worldviews you have not proven the Christian worldview."

  4. Actually, I don't disagree. On a fundamental I think we all recognize its truth, which is why we presuppose the objective validity of logic, morality, etc. We suppress what we know in unrighteousness.

  5. Paul said: "You also need to remember that disproving P does not prove Q"

    I agree, it doesn't according to my worldview (and it is not my argument), but why doesn't it according to yours Paul? By what absolute standard of logic would such a proof fail, and how do you account for that standard?

    (Interestingly enough Chris, between Paul and I , he is the only one who has used the logical fallacy he accuses me of(to prove the validity of his reasoning) - but I bet you're not surprised).

  6. Sye is being his usual self. First acknowledging that disproving P does not prove Q and yet still has on his website these lines

    "As with the truth and authority of the Bible, the best proof to the truth of Christianity is the reduction to absurdity of those who deny it."


    "What Christians need to do is challenge the 'presuppositions' of other worldviews and, in the most loving way possible, reduce them to absurdity."

    If that is not positing that disproving P does prove Q then why is Sye bothering to engage people in debates and in those debates specifically attacking the opponents worldview (my debate with him being a good example) and demonstrating the application of those two lines ? If he is not advocating disproving P proves Q then he's rather wasting his time.

    Now that his fallacy has been pointed out to him, firstly by Stephen Law, and then repeatedly by posters on the Unbelievable forums, Sye has now backtracked and stated it's not his line of argument.

    Ok, Sye - we believe you. ;-)

    So, what is PA really ?

    It's the latest in a very long line of Christian arguments to justify the specific and exclusive existance of the Christian God.

    That's all it is.

    It'll pass and be succeeded by another line of argument.