My Debate on the Problem of Evil
I just got back into town and it's after my bedtime on Sunday night, so I'm going to bed now. I realized after I announced this Blog as a place to comment and to ask questions about the debate, that several people in attendence (just over 100) couldn't comment because we don't allow anonymous comments here at DC. I've disabled that function to allow anyone who was at the debate to do so, but please use your real name.
I personally thought it went well. David Wood and his wife are a kind and winsome couple...a joy to know! I'll write more tomorrow. David hired a professional video company to record the event. We'll have to wait till they've produced the video, and I don't know yet what David wants to do with it. A transcript of the debate is being prepared too, but we'll have to wait for that too. I'll let others judge how well we each did, but I'll tell you what my wife said, and I quote: "the only people who will think David won the debate are those who are blinded by their faith, and/or people who cannot deal with arguments." Of course, she's not entirely objective and neither am I. So, like I said, I'll let others decide for themselves, and I'll tell more about our weekend later.
A big thanks goes out to several people who commented on earlier drafts of my opening statement, including Andrea Weisberger, Richard Carrier, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Ed Babinski, exapologist, Joe Holman, and Daniel Morgan (who supplied my powerpoint presentation with a few pictures).
I personally thought it went well. David Wood and his wife are a kind and winsome couple...a joy to know! I'll write more tomorrow. David hired a professional video company to record the event. We'll have to wait till they've produced the video, and I don't know yet what David wants to do with it. A transcript of the debate is being prepared too, but we'll have to wait for that too. I'll let others judge how well we each did, but I'll tell you what my wife said, and I quote: "the only people who will think David won the debate are those who are blinded by their faith, and/or people who cannot deal with arguments." Of course, she's not entirely objective and neither am I. So, like I said, I'll let others decide for themselves, and I'll tell more about our weekend later.
A big thanks goes out to several people who commented on earlier drafts of my opening statement, including Andrea Weisberger, Richard Carrier, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Ed Babinski, exapologist, Joe Holman, and Daniel Morgan (who supplied my powerpoint presentation with a few pictures).
8 comments:
I suggest you put it everywhere you can online: YouTube, Google Video, Netscape, Revver, iFilm, etc. Then you can embed it in a post on your own blog if you like.
John,
Personally I am a bit surprised that you and Mr. Wood got along so well. After reading the exchanges between Wood and Carrier and their not-so-pleasant opinion of one another, I got the impression that Wood was another Frank Walton, with a nasty attitude towards nonbelievers.
Matthew
Matthew, maybe it's just the nature of an internet discussion versus actually meeting someone personally. They were kind to us, funny, and polite. I like them both. We'll see how it goes from here. But I have always preferred a polite discussion of ideas.
Good to hear you enjoyed the debate and got along well with Mr. Wood!
I cant wait to read the transcript and see the video. I agree with Dark Sided. Put it on Youtube, IIDB, ExChristian, Google Video, etc...
I would be more than happy to write a review and provide links to the debate over at my blog when the material is available :)
Keep fighting the good fight!
John,
Thanks for the debate Saturday at ODU. Although I am a Christian and disagree with your beliefs, I appreciate your boldness in presenting your case. I would like to recommend a book that tackles the problem of evil and other issues. It's called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. You can pick it up at any major bookstore.
Thanks again,
David Ferrell
I attended the debate that you had with David Wood and I wanted to commend you for taking the chance and doing the debate. It seems to me however, that your argument is completely ad hominem (to the man). It relies only on your perception of what is just and good and how powerful God is, that he can’t heal the scars of suffering only compensate for it. It also doesn't seem to point to any contradictions of what the Bible says about God's goodness or why he allows suffering. As a Christian, it seems to me that this makes your argument very weak.
I attended the debate that you had with David Wood and I wanted to commend you for taking the chance and doing the debate.
Thanks for attending, and for commenting on it.
It seems to me however, that your argument is completely ad hominem (to the man). It relies only on your perception of what is just and good and how powerful God is, that he can’t heal the scars of suffering only compensate for it.
You may be confused about the fallacy of ad hominem -- it doesn't mean "relying upon man's judgment and reason to describe/evaluate God," rather, it means an a fallacy in which someone tries to "refute" an argument by pointing to supposed bad character or qualities held by the person promoting the argument. For example:
Daniel argues that there is no God due to the problem of evil.
Richard says, "That argument is false; Daniel only makes it because his life is full of sin and he doesn't want there to be a God."
This would be ad hominem. It is also referred to as "attacking the messenger" because it completely avoid addressing the substance of an argument (the message). I have a feeling that John's argument was completely about the question of how it is possible to reconcile the existence of a good and powerful being with the evil, pain, and suffering in our world. I have a feeling that you may be confused about this fallacy.
It also doesn't seem to point to any contradictions of what the Bible says about God's goodness or why he allows suffering. As a Christian, it seems to me that this makes your argument very weak.
I'll let John address your point also, but I wanted to say that perhaps you can be more specific about how suffering and pain are "addressed" by the Bible in a way that renders the PoE "weak"?
Best,
D
Problem of evil? Are you kidding me? I am no theist but the existence of evil proves nothing re: the existence of God.
One can easily make the argument that God is the Spirit that can control the material world. God makes the rules but is not a micromanager. Evil is the result of free will and excessive self interest. It is allowed because virtue is only possible with the possibility of doing wrong. Impotence is not virtue.
Post a Comment