.
.
Atheism vs Christianity: Peter Slezak vs William Lane Craig
.
analysis by Carl Baydala
Friends, here is another great debate concerning the existence of God. The debate is between Dr. Lane Craig and a Dr. Slezak. I have seen Mr. Craig in combat before and he is an expert at what he does. But, he is a Christian apologist, so his effect is minimal as you may expect. Dr. Slezak is a relative newcomer for me since I have never seen the man in debate before.
.
At the forefront of any debate involving the existence of God is the idea of causation. For my money this is the crucial part of any debate concerning the existence of God. The proponents of the existence of God will always say that God created the universe, and that all the rest if history as we say. So, did God really create the universe and is that where it all started?
.
Well, I personally, do not think that things are that easy to explain away. Christians do not apparently believe in the idea of infinity as we know it to be. Now, I have recently read that infinity is a mathematical impossibility so perhaps the Christians are falling back on this angle for their support as well. The study of infinity is an associated topic contained within the Cosmological Argument ( the world and the universe were created and exist; there must be a cause for this creation; God is the final cause and creator of all things ) as it supports the notion of a God. ( when you read about paradoxes the idea of infinity is debated as well. I do not think we should get carried away by this notion of the impossibility of infinity. Remember, we live in a finite world and we cannot transcend into the world of infinity and of its mysteries. If infinity does exist, then I am sure that it contains its own methods of understanding and rules of conduct for all concerned, including the Ominipotent One Himself, if He exists, that is ). Another area that the theists rely on is the study of Ontology. It is the study of Being and is the basis for the Ontological Argument
(Anselm’s ontological argument ): there is nothing greater conceived than God, therefore God exists; He is perfect, all-knowing and seeing and is just and perfectly moral. He is an ideal figure. You might to take time out to read about the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments for God's existence contained on the side bar.
.
But, I have a problem with this notion of existence and God actually. If the Christians are saying that God has always existed then aren't they saying that infinity is possible as well? How can you have one without the other? You cannot have a universe coming into creation by the Hand of God all of a sudden and then deny that God has existed for all time in the same breath. He is an infinite Being of the past and will be an infinite Being into the future. To my mind that indicates the presence of something like infinity; therefore infinity exists ( even though we cannot imagine it, since we live in a finite world and cannot comprehend infinity ), but that does not mean that God necessarily exists, however.
.
You have to remember that God is a concept - He or She or It is a creation of the human mind - the rational, idealist mind. No one knows for sure in what form God exists, if at all. We know that nature exists and that nature Herself or itself may be the cause of all that we know. ( Pantheism ) Nature, as God, is much more likely than the God of the Christians since it is readily knowable and therefore believable.
.
Man only knows what he knows ( Epistemology ) and has two ways of arriving at this knowledge. Either by empirical methods, i.e., by discovery ( Empiricism ) or by just thinking about things ( Rationalism ) with any prior knowledge or experience. Things are simply known a priori and by common logic.
.
The defenders of Christianity and of the concept of God must by definition be more rationalistic or idealistic in nature since they have no real concrete evidence of a God. The empirical data will not confirm one way or the other the existence of a God. So, the Christian apologist then must rely on his intellectual and reasoning skills to commit us to the belief in a God. If you are easily swayed then you are most likely a believer in something like Jesus Christ and the god Jehovah.
.
An atheist on the other hand gives more weight to scientific evidence; he needs empirical proof to get him where he wants to be, or sometimes to get away from where he does not want to be, namely believing in a God.
.
So, who is right and who is wrong? And, maybe to to point who is the more honest of the two - the Atheist or the Theist?
.
We need to come back to how we know. As I pointed out above there are only two methods of knowing; we either think we know something or we actually do know something by experiencing it. The quality of that experience is another topic of debate and is not my concern here. I am talking about the knowing of things that we as humans understand as a group - to know. Nobody is capable of knowing God according to the idea and methodology of empiricism. We know know God because we think we know him via the method of idealism and rationalism, but is that good enough when when we are dealing with matters of the utmost importance? I think not.
.
.
You might be interested in a more thorough analysis of the debate below:
.
.
Here is the debate for you:
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment