So I’m doing a blog debate with , which will be posted on both of our blogs. I explained that I just don’t do live debates, as I’ve spelled out time and time again on the YouTube channel, because I don’t find them to be worthwhile. There’s too much emphasis on “gotcha” and word games, plus the time constraints, so I just don’t do them.
This is also going to be posted on his blog, which you can find here. It’s being done specifically that way to prevent any hanky panky, not that I’m accusing him of doing so, but it’s always wise to do your due diligence.
This will be his opening statement and my response. No clue how often these will come out, whenever we get done, I suppose. It’s not like these things need to be a rush, it’s just two people hashing out points, and anyone who wishes to comment, please feel free to do so. Continue reading deliberationunderidealcond5105 Debate Part 1
A couple of weeks ago, we went to a memorial service for my father-in-law. He’s been dead for a number of months, but his friends wanted to get together and have a ceremony for him and we sat there, up front.
This was something that I was considering making a video on for my YouTube channel and then, I decided it would be much better doing it here. This was published on the website for the Houston Baptist University and frankly, it’s just a mess of bald rationalizations for why God is an explanation that isn’t just absurd.
I’ve seen Matt Dillahunty say this a couple of times but I’ve always disagreed. The idea is that someone who thinks they have had an experience with the divine, that somehow justifies a belief in a god. Except it doesn’t. Only an *ACTUAL* experience with a *DEMONSTRABLE* deity would justify a belief that such a god was actually there.