This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Bob Prokop writing:Just finished watching the whole thing. Wood the clear winner (and I don't just say this because I largely agree with him). Loftus's arguments all too often can be paraphrased as "well, that's just absurd/ridiculous/whatever." And I was astonished (as was the audience, judging by the gasps and laughter) when Loftus ceded the point that the evidence was overwhelmingly AGAINST atheism - and this is supposed to be the guy arguing that there is no God???I wish all my debates were that easy!
When does he admit that the evidence for God is overwhelming?
Bob Prokop writing:Ne never said the evidence "for God" was overwhelming - he said the evidence "against atheism" was.As for when, I was cooking while playing the debate, so I wasn't watching for how far into the debate it was. (In fact, I wasn't "watching" at all, just listening.)
Well is there really a distinction between saying "evidence for God" and "evidence against atheism"? Atheism just is the belief that no God exists, and evidence against that would end up being evidence that a god does exist.
Bob Prokop writing:There may be a distinction in his mind, so I'm careful to repeat his words. Perhaps he was making an oblique reference to agnosticism?
Post a Comment