Category: Debate
-
(Sort of) A Debate Announcement
Some of the readers may not know about a “counter apologetics” podcast called “Truly Free” or “Goodness Over God” by Ben Wallis and Michael Long. It is available at http://goodnessovergod.blogspot.com
Readers are familiar with Ben Wallis already (or if you are not, then Search for his name on our site), but probably not Michael Long. Michael is another well-spoken unbeliever and holds an MA in Philosophy. Some clips of Michael from the podcast are included below. Make sure to listen to them in their entirety, or else you will miss an important announcement at the end. You may also be …
-
Ben Wallis and Paul Baird Withdraw Debate Challenges
Readers will remember that I accepted a call for debate opponents from agnostic Ben Wallis here. He has since taken down the post that included the challenge and let me know that some things came up on his end that would prevent any formal debate right now. At the same time, he has suggested another debate opponent for me, and we are attempting to work something out.
Recall also that atheist Paul Baird openly challenged such noteworthy apologists as K. Scott Oliphint, Doug Wilson, and James White to debate. That challenge extended as well to Jamin Hubner, Dustin Seegars, …
-
*Updated* – Responding to the call for debate opponents (Ben Wallis)
* For some reason Ben has taken down his debate challenge and it is now cached here. I am not sure what this means. It read as follows:
…Sunday, July 10, 2011
A call for debate opponents
I’m currently seeking opponents to defend the position that God exists in a formal Skype debate (or, if you live in far west Chicagoland, a live debate). For my own part, I am prepared to defend the alternative position that we do not know whether God exists.I require that any opponent be at least 21 years old, and satisfy one—preferably two—of the
-
An Acceptance of Paul Baird's Debate Challenge
On April 29, 2011 I linked to Sye TenBruggencate’s debates which I had not, at the time, listened to.
Paul Baird responded:
Transcript of the Second Debate that I had with Sye Tenbruggebcate is here – http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/03/second-debate-transcript-work-in.html
One review is here – http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/presuppositional-apologetics-on-unbelievable/
Strangely all of Syes previous supporters appear to have vanished and none have offered any congratulations on his performance.
Maybe you guys have offered support.
In response to this comment I wrote:
…Thank you for the links.
As I mentioned in the post, I have not gotten around to listening to these exchanges yet. Perhaps after I
-
A Question on Induction from Ben Wallis (Updated)
Now that Ben has clarified his answer to the problem of induction as being one largely similar to the one provided by P.F. Strawson, and now that I have pointed out the many problems with that solution in this post, I can move on to quote a question from Ben that was asked in his last comment.
…Suppose we can’t ground induction in deduction. In that case, why should we refrain from taking inductive inferences to be rational? Why is it that you think justification for a position on, say, the force of gravity on earth, cannot consist of
-
Ben Wallis responds to “induction again” (Updated)
Ben Wallis has responded to the post found here.
…Chris,
You offer several quotations from me on induction, and suggest that they are contradictory. But how? What contradiction exactly do you see? Because I confess, I cannot find any. Perhaps you think that having something new to say about induction constitutes a change in view…? I hope that’s not the case. It just means that I’m trying to find more effective ways to communicate the point, and raising other points which might bear on it. After all, there are different problems on the table, here, and they all demand
-
Ben Wallis, induction again, and a desperate attack on Christianity
My favorite philosopher, the Scottish skeptic David Hume, did more than just a little damage to traditional religious views in terms of their philosophical justifications. Unfortunately, those who appeal to Hume for solace in their anti-theistic battles often overlook that Hume destroyed much else besides the aforementioned philosophy of religion. Hume was a skeptic through and through, so much so that he was skeptical of his own skepticism. This general consistency with Hume with respect to skepticism came as a result of his rejection of the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture and has driven more than one unbeliever to take desperate …
-
Sola Scriptura Debate
Sorry for the long wait. The audio for the debate can be found here. A transcript (courteously provided by Mr. Marcum) can be found here.
The full thesis: Sola Scriptura is an essential Christian doctrine, and necessary for instruction in faith and practice
Debaters: Dan Marcum, myself
Moderator: BK…
-
Responses to the assertions of Yasser Ali
In the debate transcript, I have inserted my opponent’s answers, as I said I would. This post is intended to answer his assertions made therein, and to address the various problems I found with them. As of this posting, he has yet to offer his final questions, so I’m going to go ahead and offer comments on the debate in it’s entirety, and consider the debate closed. My questions will be italicized bold, his answers in italics, both will be in quote, and my responses in plain text. I will be offering more comments in the future, and …
-
Debate Announcement
On Februrary 5th, I will be debating Roman Catholic Dan Marcum (a Skype debate) on the proposition “Sola Scriptura is an essential Christian doctrine, and necessary for instruction in faith and practice“. My goal is to argue this proposition presuppositionally. I’m planning on a couple of podcasts in the near future to give the audience some preparation, and to ensure my opponent knows where I’m standing, going into the debate, so stay tuned.…