Below is the link for the audio of the VT debate on the existence of God I was a part of earlier this year.
Also, for more information and my take on the debate you can view the video and comments through the link below.
October 25th, 2012
Virginia Tech Debate on the Existence of God Audio Available
by Max AndrewsPosted in Apologetics | 1 Comment »
June 6th, 2012
VIDEO: VA Tech Debate on the Existence of God
by Max AndrewsThis was a debate on March 21, 2012 at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, VA. It was sponsored by the Freethinkers at Virginia Tech, Leopard Zeus Fan Club, Ask Big Questions at Virginia Tech, and the Department of Philosophy at Liberty University.
Defending Theism
- Max Andrews, Department of Philosophy Liberty University
- Josh Nixon, Virginia Tech
Defending Atheism
- Dan Linford, Virginia Tech
- Beau Bradley, Virginia Tech
Posted in Apologetics, Arguments for the Existence of God, Existence of God, Philosophy, Problem of Evil, Science | 3 Comments »
April 24th, 2012
VT Debate Video Soon!
by Max AndrewsI’ve got an update about the debate video. I just heard from our friends at Tech and they said they have the video ready to go. The only problem is that the audio has poor quality. I’m going to try to edit that but if any of you are in the local Lynchburg area and you’re able to edit these kind of things please let me know. I would appreciate your help. This should be good to go within the next few days.
Posted in Personal | No Comments »
April 3rd, 2012
VT Debate–Response to the Atheist Objection that God is a Moral Monster
by Max AndrewsThere were two main objections, which my atheist opponents defended during the VT debate on the existence of God. One of the objections was from the problem of gratuitous evil, particularly natural evil, which I have already responded to here. The other objection raised during the debate was presented first after my opening statements. The argument was that because me and my debate partner were Christian theists the Christian God cannot exist because of the supposed atrocities in the Bible and other doctrines such as hell.
The argument began with the problem of predisposition. In other words, why you must approach your faith of choice with objectivity and skepticism and not confirmation bias. However, in response, in order to identify and affirm the discovery of a truth one must not exhaust all possibilities. Additionally, it works both ways. If the criterion is applied fairly how can one deny the proposition, in this case, God exists, without examining all possibilities? This criterion is untenable. Also, to suggest that one is a Christian because of environment or spatiotemporal location is to commit the genetic fallacy.
read more »
Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Biblical Studies, Philosophy | 3 Comments »
Tags: abductive argument, apologetics, arguments for the existence of God, bad atheist argument, biblical inerrancy, classical apologetics, cumulative case, David Baggett, deduction, deductive argument, Divine Command Theory, does God exist, Does God exist debate, Does God probably exist, does God probably exist or not, exegesis, Free thinkers, free thinkers at virginia tech, free thinkers at vt, gratuitous evil, inductive logic, inerrancy, is God a moral monster, Jerry Walls, logic, metaphysics, modus operandi, Moral Argument, moral monster, philosophy, philosophy class, probability calculus, Problem of Evil, problem of gratuitous evil, quote mining, red herring, science, thomistic cosmological argument, VA Tech Debate, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate
April 1st, 2012
VT Debate and Quote Mining
by Max AndrewsDuring the VT debate on the existence of God one of the atheists quoted a section of my blog concerning the issue of teleology and suicide. The quote read:
If there is no God to provide meaning, value, and purpose, the only consistent option for humanity is suicide.[17] Any becoming of life-affirming or life-denying acts are illusory. Absolutely nothing can be a positive or negative act for the individual since there is nothing to determine a differentiation. One is forced to face Nietzsche’s abyss and face the reality that no rope can scale the depth of nothingness. One is only left with despair, guilt, and angst. If one can determine that despair, guilt, and angst are not preferred then his only option is to eliminate such emotions and thoughts. If there is no God, the only remedy for absurdism is to participate in Nietzsche’s abyss of nothingness: suicide.
This was taken from a previous post of mine on how God provides meaning and purpose. In this quote I had a footnote reference to elaborate on one of these points. This footnote (17) reads:
read more »
Posted in Apologetics, Philosophy | 1 Comment »
Tags: Camus, Christianity, existence of God, philosophy, Sartre, suicide, teleology, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate
March 26th, 2012
VT Debate–The Problem of Gratuitous Evil
by Max AndrewsOne of the objections made by one of the atheists in the VT debate on the existence of God was William Rowe’s form of the problem of gratuitous evil:[1]
- There exist instances of intense suffering that an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Factual premise)
- An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering that being could, unless that being could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Theological premise).
- Therefore, There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Or, simply put:
- There are unnecessary evils.
- God would prevent evils without losing some greater good.
- Therefore, God does not exist.
read more »
Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Existence of God, Logic, Pain and Suffering, Philosophy | 4 Comments »
Tags: abductive argument, apologetics, arguments for the existence of God, bduction, classical apologetics, conditional probability, conjunctive probability, cosmological argument, cumulative case, David Baggett, deduction, deductive argument, disjunctive probability, does God exist, Does God exist debate, Does God probably exist, does God probably exist or not, fine tuning argument, Free thinkers, free thinkers at virginia tech, free thinkers at vt, gratuitous evil, inductive logic, Jerry Walls, logic, metaphysics, modus operandi, Moral Argument, philosophy, philosophy class, probability calculus, Problem of Evil, problem of gratuitous evil, Robin Collins, rules for probability, science, thomistic cosmological argument, VA Tech Debate, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate, william rowe
March 25th, 2012
What if God Commanded You to do Something Wrong?
by Max AndrewsWhile at the VT Debate on the existence of God one of the atheists’, in passing, briefly mentioned the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God command something because it’s good or is it good because God commands it? The first horn makes goodness apart from God and the second makes goodness arbitrary. This came up in the Q&A as well. What if God commanded you to strap a bomb to your chest and blow other people up or rape others? As an advocate of divine command theory the response to this question is a bit more nuanced then any prima facie answer. (Also, see my moral argument I presented at this debate).
The proponent of divine command theory (DCT) claims that whatever God commands to any moral agent becomes a moral obligation. Formulations of the commands are given symbolic form by David Efird as:[1]
(RIGHT) ∀ϕ☐(Rϕ ≣ Cgϕ)
(WRONG) ∀ϕ☐(Wϕ ≣ Cg~ϕ)
(PERMITTED 1) ☐(~Eg ⊃ ∀ϕ~Wϕ)[2]
(PERMITTED 2) [(∃ϕ☐Cgϕ ∙ ∃ϕ☐Cg~ϕ)] ∙ [(∃ϕ☐~Cgϕ ∙ ∃ϕ☐~Cg~ϕ)]
*∀= for all…, ☐=necessarily, ◊=possibly. For instance, RIGHT is read as for all actions, ϕ, ϕ is right if and only if God commands ϕ.
read more »
Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Ethics, Metaphysics, Philosophy | 3 Comments »
Tags: abduction, abductive argument, apologetics, argument from design, arguments for the existence of God, classical apologetics, conditional probability, conjunctive probability, cosmogony, cosmological argument, cosmology, cumulative case, Dave Baggett, dave beck, David Baggett, david beck, deduction, deductive argument, design argument, disjunctive probability, Divine Command Theory, does God exist, Does God exist debate, Does God probably exist, does God probably exist or not, ethics, fine tuning argument, Free thinkers, free thinkers at virginia tech, free thinkers at vt, Good God, Good God: Theistic Foundations of Morality, Jerry Walls, metaphysics, modus operandi, Moral Argument, moral argument for the existence of God, philosophy, philosophy class, probability calculus, Robin Collins, rules for probability, science, teleological argument, teleology, thomistic cosmological argument, timothy o'connor, train and the cosmological argument, train illustration, trains, VA Tech Debate, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate, William Lane Craig
March 24th, 2012
The Fine-Tuning Argument and Random Sampling
by Max AndrewsOne of the objections raised by an audience member at the VT debate on the existence of God was against the fine-tuning argument and probability (for my method of argumentation please see: VT Debate-My Method of Argumentation). In statistics a random sample drawn must have the same chance of being sampled as all the other samples. The objection was based on this problem. Since we know of only one universe we don’t know what the range of values for the constants and physics could be. This was also brought up in conversation with both atheists after the debate. Since we don’t know how narrow or broad these ranges could be there’s no way of drawing out any probability based argument from fine-tuning. The thing is that we can know what other universes would be like if the values were different. If our natural laws have counterfactuals that are in any way incoherent then this is an appropriate sampling. Also, to make this objection and advocate that we just so happen to live in a life permitting universe in the multiverse then this objection cannot be made since the claim that we happen to life in a life-permitting one amongst countless others suggest we can know what the other samplings are. For instance, here are a few examples:
read more »
Posted in Apologetics, Arguments for the Existence of God, Cosmology, Philosophy, Physics, Science | 3 Comments »
Tags: abduction, abductive argument, apologetics, argument from design, arguments for the existence of God, classical apologetics, conditional probability, conjunctive probability, cosmogony, cosmological argument, cosmology, cumulative case, Dave Baggett, dave beck, David Baggett, david beck, deduction, deductive argument, design argument, disjunctive probability, does God exist, Does God exist debate, Does God probably exist, does God probably exist or not, ethics, fine tuning argument, Free thinkers, free thinkers at virginia tech, free thinkers at vt, Good God, Good God: Theistic Foundations of Morality, Jerry Walls, metaphysics, modus operandi, Moral Argument, moral argument for the existence of God, philosophy, philosophy class, probability calculus, random sample, random sampling, Robin Collins, rules for probability, science, statistics, teleological argument, teleology, thomistic cosmological argument, timothy o'connor, train and the cosmological argument, train illustration, trains, VA Tech Debate, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate, William Lane Craig
March 24th, 2012
VT Debate–The Moral Argument
by Max AndrewsThe following is David Baggett’s moral argument* for the existence of a perfectly moral person I used in the VT debate on the existence of God. (I highly recommend Baggett’s book co-authored with Jerry Walls Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality.) This version of the moral argument is an abductive version. I believe this argument, when used in an abductive form, is the strongest form of the argument. You’ll usually see it in a deductive form, a la William Lane Craig. For my method of argumentation please see: VT–My Method of Argumentation.
- There are objective axiological/moral facts that obtain.
- Either the world alone or the world and a perfectly moral person best explain these facts.
- It is the case that the world and a perfectly moral person best explain these facts.
- Therefore, the world and a perfectly moral person best explain these facts.
In essence, it seems that there are objective moral facts and this asks the question, “What’s the best explanation for these facts?”
Posted in Apologetics, Arguments for the Existence of God, Ethics, Existence of God, Philosophy | 9 Comments »
Tags: abduction, abductive argument, apologetics, argument from design, arguments for the existence of God, classical apologetics, conditional probability, conjunctive probability, cosmogony, cosmological argument, cosmology, cumulative case, Dave Baggett, dave beck, David Baggett, david beck, deduction, deductive argument, design argument, disjunctive probability, does God exist, Does God exist debate, Does God probably exist, does God probably exist or not, ethics, fine tuning argument, Free thinkers, free thinkers at virginia tech, free thinkers at vt, Good God, Good God: Theistic Foundations of Morality, Jerry Walls, metaphysics, modus operandi, Moral Argument, moral argument for the existence of God, philosophy, philosophy class, probability calculus, Robin Collins, rules for probability, science, teleological argument, teleology, thomistic cosmological argument, timothy o'connor, train and the cosmological argument, train illustration, trains, VA Tech Debate, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate, William Lane Craig
March 24th, 2012
VT Debate–The Fine-Tuning Argument
by Max AndrewsThe following is Robin Collins’ fine-tuning argument for the existence of a fine-tuner I used in the VT debate on the existence of God. This version of the fine-tuning argument is an abductive version. I believe this argument, when used in an abductive form, is the strongest form of the argument. You’ll usually see it in a deductive form, a la William Lane Craig. For my method of argumentation please see: VT–My Method of Argumentation.
The fine-tuning argument argues that when the physics and the laws of nature are expressed mathematically their values are ever so balanced in a way that permits the existence of life. This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions.[1] I’m merely arguing that the universe/multiverse is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires for cosmic and biological evolution to even occur.
- Given the fine-tuning evidence, a life permitting universe/multiverse (LPM) is very, very epistemically unlikely under the non-existence of a fine-tuner (~FT): that is, P(LPM|~FT & k’) ≪ 1.
- Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPM is not unlikely under FT (Fine-Tuner): that is, ~P(LPM|FT & k’) ≪ 1.
- Therefore, LPM strongly supports FT over ~FT. [2]
read more »
Posted in Apologetics, Arguments for the Existence of God, Cosmology, Existence of God, Philosophy, Science | 3 Comments »
Tags: abduction, abductive argument, apologetics, argument from design, arguments for the existence of God, classical apologetics, conditional probability, conjunctive probability, cosmogony, cosmological argument, cosmology, cumulative case, dave beck, David Baggett, david beck, deduction, deductive argument, design argument, disjunctive probability, does God exist, Does God exist debate, Does God probably exist, does God probably exist or not, fine tuning argument, Free thinkers, free thinkers at virginia tech, free thinkers at vt, Jerry Walls, metaphysics, modus operandi, Moral Argument, philosophy, philosophy class, probability calculus, Robin Collins, rules for probability, science, teleological argument, teleology, thomistic cosmological argument, timothy o'connor, train and the cosmological argument, train illustration, trains, VA Tech Debate, Virginia Tech, VT, VT Debate