- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Back in 2008, militant atheist Paul Zachary Myers, notorious for his theft and subsequent assault on a communion wafer, declared that he had never seen an intelligent argument for gods. Being aware that most biologists are completely uneducated in the humanities, let alone philosophy, logic and theology, I was relatively certain that he had never seen one because he had never read C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton, still less Tertullian, Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. So, I offered to present the man some arguments for the existence of gods in a public debate.
As is so often the case with the bold intellectual stalwarts of the New Atheist movement, professor Myers promptly ran away, thus demonstrating why he has not seen any arguments at all. It is, after all, rather difficult to see anything when one’s eyes are squeezed firmly shut.
The challenge lay dormant for some time, until the godless wonder made the mistake of claiming that other individuals were running away from his challenge to defend Ann Coulter’s statements about evolution in one of her books. Why anyone but Ann Coulter should feel any need to do so remains a mystery, but the irony of the claim coupled with his own evasion of my challenges to a debate did not escape a number of his readers. After this incongruency was repeatedly pointed out to the cowardly professor by various individuals, Myers finally declared that he would not only never debate me, he would never debate any creationist, because doing so would amount to granting them a platform.
This rationale was nonsensical, of course, considering that far more people read WND every day than pay any attention to ScienceBlogs, but it was this sort of logical train wreck that prompted me to issue the challenge in the first place. But, since it was clear that the debate was never going to happen and numerous people had expressed interest in hearing my reasons that there is more justification for believing in the existence of gods than not believing in them, I decided to open up the debate to any interested atheist.
Several intrepid souls presented themselves, and Dominic Saltarelli was selected to argue for the nonexistence of gods. Three judges were selected, one Christian, one atheist and one agnostic. In order to prevent the debate from gravitating toward all one way or the other, both Dominic and I wrote an initial piece, followed by a rebuttal to the others initial piece, at which point the judges decided who had won the first round. The winner had the choice of continuing to make his case or to rebut his opponent’s case, thus forcing both parties to choose between pressing their own case or defending against the others.
Thus far, we have completed three rounds, and the general consensus is that the debate is proceeding in interesting and unexpected directions. Dominic is not only a clever and well-educated fellow, but he is also well aware of the weakness of common atheist talking points and has successfully avoided falling into conventional traps such as the nonsensical One Less God argument of Stephen Roberts or attempting to claim that only scientific evidence is evidence.
Now, it may not be possible to prove that gods exist, much less that the Christian God created the world and sent Jesus Christ to die for mankind. But I believe it is possible to clearly demonstrate that the weight of the logic and evidence is on the side of those who believe that gods do, in fact, exist. If this matter is of interest to you, I invite you to read the debate and judge for yourself.