[irrelig]Well, it is finished. We have given up the ghost. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. As promised, we appeared on the Evidence 4 Faith live radio broadcast to debate the two hosts of the show, and they have convinced us of the truth of Christianity. Because of this, Leighton is scheduled to be burned at the stake next Tuesday.

Listen to all the carnage!

94 Responses to “87: Evidence 4 Faith Debate”

  1. I’m sick with anticipation. Here we go.

  2. Awesome! Will listen on the drive to work tomorrow!

  3. Thanks for the Saturnalia gift.

  4. I think you guys won the debate, but it was not a knock-out. I think (to continue the boxing analogy) is was an unanimous decions by 1 point on each judges card…

    For some reason it was likely they were not even listening to you. They talked. They let you make your points in response, and then they said what they wanted to and you replied and they went to the next topic…

  5. I was present in the studio with Keith and Mike of Evidence4Faith as the debate raged, and I must say it went well. I thought both sides made their cases well, and everyone stayed away from name calling, arguing, and bad attitudes. Well done guys!

    That said, I believe the best evidence we have of God’s existence is the historically documented life of Jesus Christ in the New Testament! (I wrote a book on the evidences that support the Bible as an accurate historical document: “What Is Truth: A Handbook For Separating Fact From Fiction In A Propaganda-Filled World” – 2009). The Apostle Paul called Jesus “the visible image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). We cannot “prove” or “disprove” God by science, because science is nothing more than “what we infer from what we can presently see”. The Bible states that the things that are seen can only be explained by things we cannot see; logic leads us to the same conclusion. Jesus, through his life, miracles, teaching, and resurrection from the dead proved God’s existence. As you guys said, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are indeed a crock — however, the historical Bible is not!

  6. Kirk, we would love to have you on the show to discuss the “historically documented life” of Jesus Christ, in and out of the New Testament. If you’d like to accept our invitation, shoot us an email at irreligiosophy@gmail.com.

  7. duffman_ohyeah says:

    Great podcast on both sides!! I give the advantage to Chuck and Leighton but I might be biased *Slow Clap*

  8. I found this podcast fascinating. It was nice to hear a religion debate not break down into a shouting match or a bunch of snark riddled jabs. I would give the win so to speak to C & L, and I suspect if this discussion was over a few hours with the given time C & L would pull clearly ahead. I did find the list of evidence for god rattled off by the one host sounded as if it came from a Michael Behe power point presentation circa 2002 disappointing. Just discussing that list would take three or four hours. Good work

  9. I love the irony of ending the entire conversation with, “And remember, the best reason for believing in Christianity is because it’s true.” I guess this debate to them was about as fruitless as my prayers for god to just rapture those Westboro Baptist jerks already.

  10. I was pretty disappointed by the discussion. It was far too short and could have used some management with regards to topic. Focusing entirely on one argument would have been really interesting. As Nigel said, the list of arguments FOR god was really quite poor. As the list came on I was refuting them one by one with only a couple of sentences. While Reasonable Doubts may be boring (and corny), they are very educational. Between yours and their podcasts you’ve addressed and refuted all of these arguments. The fact that they found the cosmological argument to be the strongest argument is simply pathetic. If the universe needs a cause why doesn’t god need a cause? Done. And I’m also a little disappointed that you guys didn’t spend time addressing that even if they had a good argument for god they didn’t have any for the christian god. I think it would have been really entertaining to say ‘hypothetically, a god exists, whats your evidence that it’s jesus?’ and do an hour on that since thats the entire point of their show. Perhaps in the future when you discuss the problem of evil you can show that if there is a god and god is omnibenevolent, why did he create Leighton’s tiny penis? Argument from Penis

  11. And Leighton with a left-field stumper at the 00:48:00 mark.

  12. S,E, Medall says:

    This discussion was great. Obviously, your positions were grounded in science and as a scientist, I found them understandable and persuasive.
    The philosophical jargon is pure BS and means nothing to me. Charles nailed them on the 2nd law of TD which fundamentalists always use. They never seem to rely on any other scientific principles. Of course they relish the one’s they make up or misinterpret.
    I thought this was the best podcast you guys have put on.

  13. Moggie Magfeline says:

    I’ll have to listen to this a few more times to really appreciate the nuances of the “discussion”, but it was good to hear calm and collected debate about why Chuck & Leighton are right.

  14. Unfortunately it wasn’t a completely honest debate, not from the hosts’ side anyways. They, a couple times, tried the Gish Gallop. I’m glad you guys didn’t fall into that trap of trying to address a whole list of topics (most of which were B.S. anyways).

  15. I’ll give you the winning vote. However I’m confused, if everything must have a cause, what’s the cause of god ? More importantly though; what medication was Leighton on ? He sounded almost civil.

  16. That was too short. I demand a sequel.

    I like that it was an informal discussion, not a debate. But the inherent downside to that format is a lack of focus, and combined with a limited timespan, nothing was covered in enough depth. You were just getting into the nitty-gritty when it had to end.

  17. Moggie Magfeline says:

    I meant to say that too – I wanted it to go much longer. But then again, that’s always a problem with you two…

  18. That’s what she said!

  19. There are no winners or losers in this kind of discussion. Only time you will never get back. Chuck and Leighton were talking to a wall. A very shoddy wall constructed out of ignorance and general stupidity. Thanks guys. I needed a good cringe.

  20. Well, I think these guys have bad organisation, the debate part didn’t start until what felt like halfway in. You should have had some kind of roadmap of what was going to happen, especially if the show is regularly pressed for time. I’d much rather they came on your show and you got to talk for two hours or so.

    As for the Kalam argument, isn’t there also the need for it to be with an A theory of time? This makes my head hurt, and I always think that arguing God needs no beginning is kind of a cheat, anyway, but I think we don’t have that A-theory universe. Do we?

    This video is about circular reasoning in WL Craig’s argument and also deals with this:

    And Luke Muehlhauser has started to map Craig’s argument:

  21. The one host of the show indicated that he was once a believer in UFOs.  He was convinced after reading seven books that UFO etc were real, but after reading one book that pointed out why the arguments and evidence for UFOs were poor he changed his mind.  Presumably he understands the distinction between strong reliable evidence and arguments compared to lots of crummy worthless evidence.  It strikes me that he is repeating himself.  Instead of flying saucers this time it is Jesus and god which he is supporting with crummy evidence and subpar arguments.

  22. No, no, no. Life does NOT violate the 2nd law. Nothing violates it – if it could be violated then it wouldn’t be a natural law.

  23. how about this for the ending of that excellent podcast?
    Kalam’s cosmological? REALLY???
    Kalams cosmological is non sequitur for 4 reasons.

    1. The set cannot be contained within the set (chuck got this one in)
    2. Its special pleading to say that god created the universe.
    3. The definition of “God” in this statement is “that thing that created the universe,” not the Christian god.
    4. Even IF (and thats a big if) the rest of the argument could be refined to be correct, there is no reason to believe that THEIR god would be the one responsible. it would only point towards a creator, and that itself doesn’t mean shit.

  24. As soon as I heard the phrase “evidence for faith” I knew this was going to be a bad one.

    Also, I was sad that there was no name-calling, no ridicule, and no mention of Leighton’s penis.

  25. Interesting that deists can easily dismiss other religions based on logic, but are unable to provide any compelling logical argument for their own belief. The only thing religion offers is authority bias and faith, which is an excuse to believe in something you have no good reason to believe in. This is why people who lose belief in one religion based on reason are more likely to be skeptical and athiest/agnostic-leaning – because no religion holds up to critical inquiry.

  26. Awesome Debate guys! But I think these debates are kind of pointless. Seriously…you’re never going to change their minds and they’re not going to change ours. Good times though,

  27. Great debate, even if it hurt my ears and head just listening to the other side spat out the same old fantasy they live day in and day out. Still a job well done. Now where is that aspirin bottle.

  28. Mr. Hastings: You state that you “wrote a book on the evidences [sic] that support the Bible as an accurate historical document: “What Is Truth: A Handbook For Separating Fact From Fiction In A Propaganda-Filled World” – 2009).”

    That’s fantastic. Why is this book not available everywhere? Why is everybody not quoting it? I mean, these questions have been confronting humanity for centuries; you found the answer, but it is being kept from us. Who is behind this conspiracy to obstruct the truth?

  29. This was a very good podcast and the first i have heard with admitted religious people that didn’t end in yelling and fighting. I would suggest that when you do this again with these individuals or others, that you get a moderator. someone to keep each side in check and not go over on time.

    Just a suggestion.

  30. duffman_ohyeah says:

    @Chloe the point isn’t to change each others minds its for the listeners that are Christians or maybe unsure to hear both sides of the discussion. I bet their where a lot of listeners to Evidence4Faith that had never heard a real definition of the position that Atheists hold of a or a refutation of the Kalam cosmological argument or the proper definition of the 2 nd law of thermodynamics.

  31. Moggie Magfeline says:

    Good suggestion stodluke, but I think they should invite Shirley back to be part of the discussion, just to mix it up a bit.

  32. (was) somewhere in greece says:

    Pouring energy into a system makes it disorganised? Our solar system is a closed system??? What. The. Hell. The Oort cloud is NOT a wall that stops cosmic energy pouring in or the sun’s energy bounce right back into the planetary area. And how do we know that? BECAUSE WE CAN SEE THE OTHER BLOODY STARS!

    Go to YouTube and search Carl Sagan, before you make more of a mockery of yourselves, if such a thing is even possible. I wouldn’t get away with that stuff in elementary school.

  33. These evidence 4 faith guys are crazy. I checked out one of the old shows about the Answers in Genesis conference. They actually speak favourably of young earth creationism. What are bunch of dopes. Believing in god is a level of craziness I have come to accept from people without thinking they are complete idiots; young earth creationism is hardcore stubborn idiocy.

  34. Lol Mr. Kirk Hastings, the author of several indespensible books such as The Infinity Man (fiction) and Doo Wop Motels: Architectural Wonders of the Wildwoods [New Jersey] (historical non-fiction)! He certainly has presented himself as an authority on The historical accuracy of Jesus! although the book he has referenced has yet to be reviewed on the five websites I searched it on. Hmmmmmm

  35. rationalokie says:

    Balaam’s talking donkey, talking serpents, giants, people living 900 years, people living in the belly of a whale for 3 days, a flood that covered the whole earth, people walking on water, turning water to wine, rising from the dead, turning into pillars of salt, and (my favorite) zombies popping out of the ground after Yeshua’s death and roaming through downtown Jerusalem.

    Why should you believe this stuff? Because, “the best evidence we have of God’s existence is the historically documented life of Jesus Christ in the New Testament!” There you go doubters, it’s “HISTORICAL”.

    Sounds reasonable.

  36. Mickmeister says:

    Wow, it actually WAS “gentlemanly” – who would have thunk it? It was nice that it didn’t devolve into a shouting match, nor one of those boring “Christian and atheist” yawnfests where each side is pissing in their pants afraid to fire up the other side. Too bad it didn’t last longer…it only scratched the surface. These guys have some phenomenally wacky ideas – especially considering one is a licensed MD – which weren’t even touched on. We definitely need a Part 2 – and maybe a 3. In the mean time…good job!

  37. wenchygirl says:

    Did anybody else notice that Chuck didn’t actually DENY prescribing people pocket lumps of uranium to increase the orderliness of their bodies?

  38. @wenchygirl: You’re telling me you don’t own a pocket lump?

    I thought every did…

  39. Well, I liked it but I had 2 problems with it:

    1) Too short.

    2) I was cringing during the entire “cosmological argument” thing. I could not believe that you guys didn’t even mention the contradiction with the premises of “everything has a cause” and “god is the first cause”. Why didn’t you mention that? It’s the most simple and blatant problem with that line of reasoning.

  40. Shaun Black says:

    I would like to reiterate what John said. The debate should have begun with “Hypothetically, a god exists, what evidence do you have that its yours?” and then Chuck could have pissed and shit all over their “evidence” right in front of them. The reaction would have been oh so sweet. Who cares about “proofs (pfft) of god” that can apply to every deity across the Religious spectrum? Chuck & Leighton… I demand better of you next time.
    the inspiration behind “Bonerderm”.

  41. Good presentation by C&L. However I think you might have missed hitting one out of the ballpark when asked for positive evidence there is no god. Please, please correct me if I am wrong. Very briefly the argument for no (Christian) god is:

    The Christian God is defined as all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. These, like the square circle, are self-contradictory concepts. Very briefly: 1) Where does god store ‘all-knowledge’ (which must include the distance between every pair of particles in the universe – including gods brain). A particle (however you define it) can NOT store the distance to all other particles within itself. 2) Can an all-powerful god create a collection of matter so great that god can’t move it? Can an all-powerful god change the future (if so then god can’t be all-knowing (about the future))? 3) Jesus tells a story about the Good Samaritan and the two evil men who presumably have the means to help the injured traveler but refuse, passing on. Can an entity that has the means (all-powerful?) to help others, but refuses to do so, really be considered ‘all-good’?

  42. I haven’t even finished listening to this podcast, and I know that both of you have much more patience than I do. I had to keep stopping and rewinding because I was correcting Keith’s science explanations out loud, and missing the rest of what he was saying.

    Mind you, I’m doing this while alone, so I feel silly as it is…

  43. Ed says: I was cringing during the entire “cosmological argument” thing. I could not believe that you guys didn’t even mention the contradiction with the premises of “everything has a cause” and “god is the first cause”. Why didn’t you mention that? It’s the most simple and blatant problem with that line of reasoning.

    Because we were discussing the KALAM cosmological argument, not the regular cosmological argument. The Kalam cosmological argument is as follows:

    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    They then go on to argue that cause is God. Notice the “begins to exist” part that has been specifically crafted to sidestep the weakness of the regular cosmological argument. If you go after the Kalam argument just like you would the regular version and say, “Well, then what caused God?” They just smile smugly and say, “God did not begin to exist, therefore he does not require a cause. He is simply eternal.”

    And you just stand there looking embarrassed, because you refuted the wrong argument.

  44. wenchygirl says:

    @Dietrich: The uranium in your pocket by definition does nothing because when you are wearing clothes, you are a closed system. If it were worn next to the skin it would cause increased entropy, similar to sunlight, which is why the earth is protected from sunlight since life cannot exist in the presence of sunlight because it increases entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is actually saving your life from this medical scam.

    The notion that a random, non-designed law of nature would care enough about you to save your life from pocket uranium…well, that takes as much faith to believe as Christianity, doesn’t it!

  45. Hey, I tried. I must have listened to at least 10 minutes. I heard this.
    >I am an atheist.
    >Oh, so you believe there is no god.
    >No, I have seen no evidence for the existence of any gods.
    >Oh, so you believe there is not god.

    Click., times up. I’m outta here.

    Fuck that noise. These fuckers cannot talk without putting words into your mouths. Cannot carry on an honest discussion.

  46. Moggie Magfeline says:

    Balaam Kalam – this will now be my version of yaddah yaddah yaddah/yackety shmackety.

  47. RationalOkie says:

    They also avoided the argument that the person who posits the claim has the burden of proof.

  48. SocraticMammal says:

    These guys sounded so used to dealing with like minds that they didn’t make real effort to discuss the counterpoints C&L were making. Instead they made notes so as to be able to better respond next time. Talk about rationalizing out of a state of cognitive disonnance. In the god of the gaps discussion, he flatly stated acceptance of the existence of god a-priori as foundational to his invocation which made Leighton’s early point to science interrogates/religion presumes, Chuck’s point about lightning, and Loftus’ point on worldviews. At the same time, countering their own claim that the strongest rational evidence for god was found in philosophy, not science. A retreat onto a battlefield already lost.

    Loved the part were they couldn’t figure out why the couldn’t figure out why the were unsucessfull at proselytising to Mormons after convincing them religion was a sham. Priceless.

    Overall a really good discussion, though not much of a conversation, but not by any fault of your own. Leighton brought some good point at the table and Chuck’s metered approach kept things on track.

  49. Wow. Leighton cleans up nicely. I was starting to think he was incapable of manners! Loved the episode. 🙂

  50. I have my moments, Karyn. As disconcerting as it is, I sometimes employ modern technologies by eating with utensils.