Does God Exist?

Saturday night atheist author Christopher Hitchens (god is Not Great and Is Christianity Good for the World?), pictured on the right, and theology professor and author Dr. William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith), on the left, met in a formal debate of the question, Does God exist? The two-and-a-half hour interchange took place at Biola University in La Mirada, CA. And I had the privilege, thanks to fellow blogger, Mike Duran (who also posted on the event), of attending. For those of you interested in a brief, fairly objective overview, I suggest you read the front page article that appeared in the Whittier Daily News this morning.

Demand for good seats was high. I stood in line for over two hours, then sat another hour waiting for the debate to begin, but the time was well worth it. Actually this was the first formal debate I’ve every attended, and it was a good one.

After opening remarks by the host (including a caution against raucous or rancorous audience response—a caution wonderfully observed) and the introduction of moderator Hugh Hewitt and of the two participants, the debate began with opening arguments. As I recall, Dr. Craig and Mr. Hitchens each spoke for twenty minutes.

Round two consisted of rebuttals followed by cross examinations in which each debater had a set number of questions to put to the other. Round four consisted of a response to the points made during the cross examination, followed by closing arguments. The debate ended with several students asking questions which both men answered. Afterward they participated in a book signing.

So what did they actually say?

Dr. Craig spoke first and presented five arguments for the existence of God based on deductive reasoning (if point A is true, that leads logically to point B. If B is true, then logically C). As he explained, in order to dispute the logical conclusion of such an argument, a person would necessarily have to disprove the premise.

His first argument was cosmological. He stated that whatever begins to exist has a cause and reasoned from this premise to the existence of God.

His second argument was teleological, or the argument for the existence of God from the evidence of order. In pointing out the incredibly small margin of error that allows for life on this planet, Dr. Craig stated that, if the universe was in fact a result of chance or of some law of nature, there should be observable evidence of an ensemble of finely-tuned worlds such as our own.

I couldn’t help but think that much of space exploration may be driven by the desire of atheistic scientists (not all scientists are atheists) to find just such evidence, much as there used to be a determined hunt for the missing link to prove evolution.

But back to the debate. Dr. Craig’s third argument centered on morals. The premise he reasoned from is this: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. His position reminds me of Mike Duran’s post more than a year ago about atheists and thanksgiving. If God does not exist, then moral values do not exist, so what prompts an atheist to be thankful?

The natural conclusion of a-morality is that whatever a person does is right, therefore one act is no more heinous or virtuous than another. Lions are not accused of murder or pedo-cide, not branded as cannibals because they may eat their young. They are what they are and there is no good or evil attached to their actions. So too should be the truth about Man, if God did not exist. But, of course, it is not the truth about Man. Atheists as much as Christians or Hindus or Jews believe there are virtuous acts and attitudes as well as heinous ones. In fact, on many points nearly all groups, religious or otherwise, agree.

Dr. Craig’s fourth argument surprised me. He stated that the resurrection of Jesus is proof of God’s existence. I had thought that such a miraculous event wouldn’t be convincing to an atheist, but Dr. Craig reasoned from historically verifiable positions:

There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Dr. Craig’s final evidence for the existence of God was “The Immediate Experience of God.” If a rational, non-delusional person claims he experiences God, his experience validates his belief if said belief does not rest solely on the experience but is grounded in other rational argument.

Well, obviously I have more to write about this event. Tomorrow I’ll give some of the things I gleaned from Mr. Hitchens’s side of the debate.

30 Comments

  1. “There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection.”

    Alas, these are not established facts.

    Unless, of course, he means ‘established in one book whose whole purpose is to convince people of the thing.’

    Perhaps Dr. Craig has a different definition of the word ‘fact’ than is normally accepted?

    Like

  2. There is the evidence of the followers of Jesus, how they lived their lives, and how many of them died. Many of the earliest followers were still alive when much of the New Testament was written, and even gave witness to it, and they could have refuted the material as false. Many of them also gave their lives for their faith. Would they do that for a lie? If they knew He was dead, and had never risen from the grave, why would they testify that He did?

    An excellent resource full of solid information is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (the book, and the DVD). A journalist, Strobel was also an atheist who set about disproving the Gospel, and ended up believing it.

    Like

  3. “There is the evidence of the followers of Jesus, how they lived their lives, and how many of them died.”

    Not terribly good evidence, considering every religion has the same.
    “Many of the earliest followers were still alive”

    And also mostly illiterate. Which is not an insult. Most people at the time were illiterate. And illiterate people generally don’t go around refuting written records.

    “Many of them also gave their lives for their faith. Would they do that for a lie?”

    Jonestown. Heaven’s Gate. Muslim martyrs. I suppose, because they all died for their belief, that their beliefs are true?

    “why would they testify that He did?”

    People believe strange things for any number of reasons.

    Like

  4. “And illiterate people generally don’t go around refuting written records.”

    You do not have to be able to read to commit words to memory. Because they could not read does not mean they did not know the scriptures.

    “Jonestown.”

    In their defense, many did not commit suicide but were murdered.

    “Heaven’s Gate. Muslim martyrs”

    These people committed suicide, which is very different than being killed simply because of what one believes.

    Like

  5. So Mormon’s killed in range wars and Muslims killed fighting in the crusades had true beliefs, because they were killed for their beliefs. Suicide bombers and death cult members only died, so their beliefs aren’t true. Is that what you’re saying?

    It’s much simpler than that. A person’s belief, no matter how strong, has no connection to whether or not that belief is true.

    “You do not have to be able to read to commit words to memory. Because they could not read does not mean they did not know the scriptures.”

    As the only written records we have come, literally, decades after the man was supposed to have lived, whose to say that anyone was around or bothered to try refuting or confirming what was, at the beginning, just a small sect of Judaism?

    If the history of religions tells us anything, it’s that people generally don’t look too closely at the claims made. Some do, certainly. But most fall into one of two categories. They believe it without question, or they ignore it because they have their own beliefs already.

    Like

  6. Becky, I find this Hitchens’ quote from the Whittier Daily News link, pretty interesting:

    “If there was a God, it still wouldn’t prove that this entity cared about us, answered prayer, cared about who we had sex with or in what position,” Hitchens said. “Emancipate yourself from the idea of a celestial dictatorship and you’ve taken the first step toward becoming free.”

    Hitchens said, “If there was a God…” It’s funny how many times during the debate that Hitchens made these small concessions, as if his surety about atheism was somewhat compromised. And as much as he spoke about “becoming free,” Hitchens could not evade the logical outworking of his atheism — complete, absolute, nothingness. I can’t think of anything more freeing than the realization that I’m plummeting toward abject oblivion. Now that’s freedom, baby!

    Like

  7. History of religion is one thing. Recordings of so-called religious people committing acts, establishing religions, etc.
    History does prove the existence of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, and establish witnesses for his appearances after his death. The Bible has survived time, war, history, other religions, “personal” assaults and criticisms. Both historians and scientists are still to this day discovering “new” truths in sites, people, events.
    Some choose to not believe its authenticity or claims. They have no relationship with their Creator, no acknowledgement of their “sinful” origins and inclinations, no supposed need for a “Savior”. No ultimate resting place other than the “oblivion” which Mike described. Their choice.
    But the order of the universe remains, the sinful state and actions of mankind remain–even those who do wrong in the name of religion–and the need for Truth remains. If not believing in the freedom Jesus offers makes individuals assume their own brand of “freedom”, they are entitled. If not believing in what he did for each one of us causes them to feel superior in their belief system or more intelligent in their assessments of all origins, they are entitled. However, it brings them no closer to actual determination of is there or isn’t there a God.
    And it’s a terrible risk to take, but that can be of no immediate consequence to their decision unless death comes unexpectedly–which it often does.
    Just my thoughts.

    Like

  8. “History does prove the existence of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, and establish witnesses for his appearances after his death.”

    No, actually, it doesn’t.

    His existence perhaps. But the rest, not so much. The bible says so, of course. But again, it was written decades after his supposed death. If those ‘witnesses’ are good enough for you, then you seriously need to consider first hand modern witnesses to UFO abduction.

    “The Bible has survived time, war, history, other religions, “personal” assaults and criticisms.”

    So? So has the Koran and the Bhagadvagita. That doesn’t make them true.

    “And it’s a terrible risk to take”

    No, it really isn’t. There’s no good evidence to back any of it up. And if you think there is, then you should be very scared of going to the Muslim version of hell, because they have just as much ‘evidence’ as you do.

    Like

  9. “So Mormon’s killed in range wars and Muslims killed fighting in the crusades had true beliefs, because they were killed for their beliefs. Suicide bombers and death cult members only died, so their beliefs aren’t true. Is that what you’re saying?”

    I was just pointing out that there is a huge difference between committing suicide because of a belief and being killed simply for holding that belief. Choosing to die rather than convert to another belief system does prove humans are quite passionate about this God thing. So, the next question becomes, Why?

    “As the only written records we have come, literally, decades after the man was supposed to have lived, whose to say that anyone was around or bothered to try refuting or confirming what was, at the beginning, just a small sect of Judaism?”

    Archeologists have found more ancient copies of the Bible than any other historical text to date. So, if I follow your line of reasoning, it requires me to distrust any and all historical writings. That would require me to forget almost everything I know about human history (and means my college education was a supreme waste of time).

    Like

  10. Hi, morsec0de, welcome back. I appreciate you entering into this dialogue.

    Interestingly, Mr. Hitchens made the same kind of argument you did about people of all kinds of faith being willing to die and being susceptible to delusion.

    The point that Dr. Craig made had a different slant, however. Before I get to that, though, let me show a difference between what, say Japanese kamikazi pilots did and first century Christians, if, as you seem to believe, they in fact did not see an empty tomb or a risen Christ. In the latter instance, they would not have been standing up for what they believed but rather for what they knew they were fabricating. They didn’t really see an empty tomb but told everyone they did and would not recant, even in the face of death. I have to say, I think it takes more faith to believe such a twist of history than to believe in miracles.

    But here’s Dr. Craig’s point. Jesus’s death IS an historical event. Again to equate it with flying saucers takes a lot of faith. This was not a bright light whisking across the sky or one deluded person babbling about abduction. This was a Roman execution. That kind of an event could not be fabricated. It was public. The whole city knew what was happening.

    The empty tomb, likewise, was an historical fact. If not, the easiest way to refute the assertion would be to produce the body. You say that the accounts of Jesus’s life and death weren’t written until decades later, and that’s true, but His followers preaching and thousands of people believing happened within a couple months of His death. So the idea that the tomb was empty was something that could have been immediately proved to be untrue. And it wasn’t.

    Finally, and this is the point that Dr. Craig emphasized and I think carries a great deal of weight, the disciples, coming from the Jewish religion, believed as did their peers that the Messiah would set up an earthly kingdom. They anticipated freedom from Rome, freedom from oppression, a chance to live their lives without the rule of tyranny.

    In addition, they did not believe the Messiah would be a suffering savior but that he would come as a king and a conqueror. When Jesus died, their hopes were crushed.

    There was no Jewish teaching about a spiritual Messiah. There was no teaching about resurrection apart from the final resurrection in the after life.

    There needs to be a reason this group of Jewish men and women departed from what they had believed all their lives. People don’t suddenly act without motivation against their upbringing and opposed to their society—this is something modern psychology knows.

    An actual encounter with a resurrected Jesus accounts for their dramatic about-face. It is also what they, in their own writing, say was the cause for their change. There is no reason to disbelieve then, except if someone holds a predisposition against the supernatural and the miraculous. That certainly seems to be true of Mr. Hitchens, as I’ll write about in my post today.

    Becky

    Like

  11. “The empty tomb, likewise, was an historical fact.”

    No, I’m sorry, but it’s not. It’s a statement made by a book that was written decades after the events supposedly took place.

    It could just as easily be explained as an addition later to make the story better. Or a single person stealing a body to firm up the beliefs of others.

    But let’s pretend that there was an empty tomb, as you say. Your BEST answer for that is “magical disappearance of the body and resurrection”?

    “An actual encounter with a resurrected Jesus accounts for their dramatic about-face.”

    And so does an actual encounter with a strong political or religious leader.

    “predisposition against the supernatural and the miraculous.”

    Sorry, but pointing out that there is no good evidence for the supernatural or the miraculous is not a predisposition. It’s an acknowledgment of reality.

    Like

  12. It’s an acknowledgment of reality. morsecOde, I think you’d agree, this is a statement you can’t verify. Because you don’t accept the proof I have doesn’t mean that my proofs aren’t true.

    I spent a year in Tanzania, East Africa and met a man who worked for my father named Omari. I know that Omari, if he’s still living, is a real person, with a sense of humor, desires, things he loves. I sat across the table with him and washed his dishes. I had discussions with him about things like gravity and what holds the world in place.

    Do you believe Omari exists? All you have is my say so, though I’ve given you some things that a group of people would find hard to accept. (A white woman washing an African’s dishes, for instance).

    All you have is my word. And yes, I’m writing decades after the fact. Does that invalidate my experience, my eye-witness account? What if my sister, who reads here from time to time and who had more contact with Omari than I did, would support my claims? Would that make my word more or less valid?

    The point is, you and Mr. Hitchens and others discount historical evidence simply because it is religious, because it proclaims what you have predetermined can not be. Because you say it can not be, you say the proof is weak or wrong or fabricated or falsified. Anything but what it is. Truth.

    There is nothing anyone can say to you that will convince you. God created this world. All you have to do is look at it. But that’s not enough. So He sent prophets to speak on His behalf, but that’s not enough. So He sent His Son, God in the flesh, but Mr. Hitchens says, no he wants extraordinary proof. Yet the extraordinary then is dismissed.

    There is no proof you will believe as long as you keep the door closed. As long as you have made up your mind that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

    For Mr. Hitchens, he’s come to that position because he wants to be free, not held accountable. MorsecOde, I wonder what your reason is.

    Becky

    Like

  13. “Do you believe Omari exists”

    Yes. And here’s why.

    Omari, as you have described him, is a normal human person. I have had experiences with normal human people. That being said, while you could be lying, I am more than justified in believing that you are telling me the truth that this man exists.

    The existence of an essentially normal human being is so common place and so backed up by accumulated evidence, your word is more than enough to make it ok for me to believe in the EXISTENCE (and only that) of that specific person.

    If, however, you stated that Omari could sprout wings out of his back and fly, could shoot laser beams from his eyes and turn water into hair gel, then your word is not enough evidence.

    Give me additional evidence. Take me to see this Omari so he can fly. Show me photographs and videos backed up by film experts as to their veracity. Let him demonstrate his ability to turn water into hair gel, and let scientists study it.

    That would be enough to believe, not that the man existed, but that the fantastical claims made about him are true.

    If miraculous things were common place, then your claims that they happened would be good enough. But they are not. They are not even rare. There is no good evidence for miraculous things happen. All anyone has are anecdotes. And you can pile them all on top of each other, but they will still just be anecdotes, not good evidence.

    As for ‘being held accountable’, I am accountable for my actions to my family, my friends, and everyone whom I may wrong. I don’t need some sort of magical deity to keep me in check.

    Like

  14. Miraculous things as you call them are not common to you, M. Very seldom does anyone see what they refuse to acknowledge even when it exists. You choose to trust your “instincts” or intellect and spout “facts” you cannot prove any more than you insist believers cannot prove our claims. Certainty of the non-existence of God is no more proof of it than our certainty that He exists is. Actually we have history on our side if you want to use checks and balances. Most, perhaps not you, atheists have to go back into immeasurable time (i.e. millions of years ago) to attempt to validate their beliefs.
    Magic is a far cry from a supernatural being. And miracles are more than “anecdotes” since you cannot disprove them either. You have no basis for labeling them anecdotes other than your opinions.
    From what moral code did you form accountability? So what does keeping you “in check” mean? How and from what guide did you establish what you consider moral or decent or however you define those standards that regard for others requires of you?
    No matter, you don’t have to answer. No doubt we’ll disagree.

    Like

  15. If, however, you stated that Omari could sprout wings out of his back and fly, could shoot laser beams from his eyes and turn water into hair gel, then your word is not enough evidence.

    morsecOde, you made my point. No eye witness account is sufficient if it declares what you don’t believe. In other words, there is nothing anyone else can say to convince you. You’ve already made up your mind.

    Of course miracles aren’t common place. That’s why they are called miraculous, not commonplace.

    Ironic that Jesus said the miracles He did were the varifying evidences of His identity.

    It makes me sad that you have painted yourself into a corner where you cannot trust other people, including people like Dr. Craig, a scholar, an obviously non-delusional individual who stands before thousands of people and says he has experienced God.

    You have no choice but to try to discredit him or his arguments because of your presupposition. It’s a narrow way to live.

    Becky

    Like

  16. “No eye witness account is sufficient if it declares what you don’t believe. In other words, there is nothing anyone else can say to convince you.”

    There’s nothing you can SAY. But there’s plenty you can DO to show me.

    Again, if all you need is someone’s word for it, why don’t you believe every religion? Why don’t you believe the ghost hunters, the Big Foot hunters and the UFO abductees? They all have plenty of eye witness accounts.

    Like

  17. It’s simple, M. We can tell you we’ve experienced God. We can tell you we’ve experienced the supernatural character and demonstrations of God. (And btw there are evil demonstrations of the supernatural as well.) We can testify to the historical evidence of Biblical data with charts, locations, archaeology, etc. But you will not see, hear, or believe until you decide to ask God to show Himself to you in a manner you can understand which He will graciously do if your heart is sincere in desiring to find Him. It’s your heart in the matter that counts, not your intellect. No matter how brilliant your methodology or science or logic, it remains unimpressive to the One who gave you your abilities to reason, think, create, work, and breathe.

    Like

  18. There’s nothing you can SAY. But there’s plenty you can DO to show me.

    I don’t think so, morsecOde. Jesus—God in the flesh—came in person, but a group of people questioned His every move. Some didn’t believe in the supernatural. Some did but thought He got his powers from the dark side.

    Truly, as Nicole points out, the evidence is there for the examining. There are plenty of examples of atheists who determined to look at the evidence with an open mind and in the process met God through His Son Jesus, so I know it’s not my wishful thinking.

    My point is, if you are determined to disbelieve, nothing I say, and more importantly, nothing God has done or could do will change your mind. God is not someone you can manipulate. He’s not going to put on a show for you. He’s also not the tyrant Mr. Hitchens thinks He is, so He’s not going to force you to believe in something against your will.

    Using the “painted into a corner” metaphor, it’s as if you’re standing there, face to the wall, and declaring that, no, you can’t see God, when He’s standing right behind you asking you to turn around and look at Him. Instead you say, “If he exists he needs to show himself without me having to move.”

    It’s clear this is impossible. You say the supernatural doesn’t exist, which negates any evidence for a supernatural being. That’s your “facing the wall” position. God’s voice behind you, you merely explain away using naturalistic explantations.

    First you have to entertain the possibility that a being greater than yourself exists. If you can’t go there, then as I said, no evidence will suffice to convince you. Before you can see, you have to open your eyes.

    Becky

    Like

  19. “I don’t think so, morsecOde.”

    Um…well…you’re wrong. Sorry.

    “esus—God in the flesh—came in person, but a group of people questioned His every move. Some didn’t believe in the supernatural. Some did but thought He got his powers from the dark side.”

    Perhaps, if the story is true, he should have tried it in a culture with mass communication and a high level of literacy.

    “My point is, if you are determined to disbelieve”

    I’m not. I’m saying “show me evidence”. Your response is “here are some stories”. But I’m not asking for stories. I’m asking for evidence. If you don’t have any, then why should I believe your stories and not, say, the Muslim stories? Or the UFO stories?

    “You say the supernatural doesn’t exist”

    I never said that. I said there was no good evidence for it.

    Show me some good evidence, and I’ll believe it. I can’t believe something before I believe it.

    “First you have to entertain the possibility that a being greater than yourself exists.”

    I’ve entertained that possibility countless times. And it keeps coming up with no evidence to support it.

    What is it you have against evidence?

    Like

  20. morsecOde, I don’t have any problem with evidence, but you refute it with naturalistic explanations. I can’t make you see that 2+2=4 if you’re committed to saying that it equals 0. I can count it out, I can bring in others who explain it, I can tell you I personally have added in two to another two and now have four. But if you don’t accept that, what more do you want?

    Apparently you discount historical evidence as “stories.” As Nicole said, you must then discount most of the study of the human race. Did Abraham Lincoln actually exist? How do you know? Show me your proof.

    There is a vast, complex world. It’s existence needs to be explained. A Designer explains it.

    There’s an historical Jesus who claimed to be God, who died publically, who’s empty tomb resurrection alone explains adequately. And if He rose from the dead as He said He would, wouldn’t that be the kind of proof you’re asking for from an all-powerful being?

    Turn around and look, morsecOde. The evidence is all right there.

    Becky

    Like

  21. “Designer explains it.”

    So do intergalactic universe creating pixies.

    Having something that can explain something doesn’t mean it does. You still need (wait for it) EVIDENCE.

    The fact that you can’t give me any evidence beyond saying “it’s right there” tells me all I need to know. If you actually had any, you could give me specific examples.

    Like

  22. M, you’re as good as blind to them. Give me proof God doesn’t exist without reverting to the unprovable expounding of secular evolution which proves nothing. Give me proof and evidence that He doesn’t exist. You can’t. You’re in a nowhere place with it. If you really wanted “evidence”, you’d ask God to show you–not half-heartedly, not sarcastically, not even with the willful disbelief lodged firmly in your psyche but rather with a genuine openness to His reality. Those of us who had to do the same to arrive at our conclusions know what you will find if you search with your whole heart: He will be found and revealed.

    Like

  23. “Give me proof God doesn’t exist”

    Give me proof my intergalactic universe creating pixies don’t exist.

    You can’t.

    Hmmm. Must exist then.

    Or perhaps the real world doesn’t work that way.

    Like

  24. “If you really wanted “evidence”, you’d ask God to show you–not half-heartedly, not sarcastically, not even with the willful disbelief lodged firmly in your psyche but rather with a genuine openness to His reality.”

    Exactly. A hardened heart cannot see Him. You have to have a willing heart. Seek and you will find. That’s just how it works.

    Like

  25. Your “real” world is two dimensional. Small. If you think that what you can see and prove physically is all there is, you have limited space and time to the day you realized you were alive, to the places you’ve visited in person, to the experiences only you have had, and your existence until the day you die. Your choice to live that way, M. No one here is arguing with that.

    Like

  26. morsecOde, there have been BOOKS written to give argument and evidence for God’s existence. I’m sorry I haven’t given you any here that you believe. Granted, what I’ve said is not the kind of evidence you seem to require. You want a physical something (though God is Spirit) that occurs before your eyes (since you won’t believe eye-witness accounts).

    But God doesn’t perform on demand. Even when first century people asked a sign of Jesus, He said, essentially, Look at what I’ve done. That’s all the sign you’re getting. That and the coming resurrection.

    In another instance, in a parable about the after life, one who wanted to warn his brothers to believe so they wouldn’t have to suffer the torment he faced, asked if someone couldn’t come back from the dead because that would convince his brothers. He was told, no it wouldn’t. The brothers had the Law and the prophets, and if they didn’t believe those, they wouldn’t believe even if someone rose from the dead.

    Your disbelief in the resurrection of Christ, despite overwhelming historical evidence—not “stories” as you claim—bears out the truth of this assertion. (By the way, you still haven’t said how you know that Abraham Lincoln existed. So are you telling me he didn’t? Is he, like God, a myth in your thinking because you haven’t seen evidence of him for yourself?)

    Here’s the truth—God will show you Himself if you want Him to. But as long as you don’t want to be accountable to a Creator, as long as you don’t want the originator of objective morality to tell you what good is, as long as you value your independence over the truth, then you won’t entertain the possibility that there is indeed a Supreme Being in charge.

    I don’t know, morsecOde, but I think that would be a hard way to live.

    Becky

    Like

  27. Hi, morsecOde! I’m late to this party, but not to this line of reasoning. I spent a very fruitful couple of weeks on an Amazon thread where someone quite plainly asked for evidence of God’s existence but with the following caveats: no use of the Bible and no use of subjective experience. The thread went on for several hundred comments with the original poster, like you here, demanding to want evidence. But when all was said and done, the original poster never NEVER explained what WOULD be acceptable evidence. All he did was take pot shots and shoot down what he wouldn’t accept. There are many people in this world who just like to argue. He was one, and I wonder about you. So I’ll ask you the same question I asked him. Hopefully your response will show (unlike his) that you actually care about the truth.

    Question: What would you accept as proof of a creator God who loves the people he created? I mean, short of Jesus showing up at your place for breakfast tomorrow morning or appearing on The View to discuss theology with Baba and Whoopie, what kind of thing would convince you (or even sort-of convince you)?

    Like

  28. “I mean, short of Jesus showing up at your place for breakfast tomorrow morning”

    Why short of that?

    If your books are to be believed, Moses got a burning and talking bush. The Hebrews got a pillar of fire. Thomas got to put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus.

    Any one of those would be a great piece of evidence. Even better if they were verified by others as well.

    Like

  29. […] Sadly, Mr. Hitchens only demonstrates his lack of understanding of God. Could he possible think that the Creator of the universe with be impressed with some last ditch effort to gain His favor? To say such a thing makes it plain Mr. Hitchens doesn’t understand the first thing about God, no matter how often he has debated other Christians. […]

    Like

  30. […] I had the privilege of attending a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Biola University professor William Lane Craig, I was […]

    Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: