RE: Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?
June 19, 2023 at 12:53 am
Hitchens also committed a blatant or elementary logical fallacy in the midst of the debate. Here are his words:
Hitchens: "There's no claim I know to make that "Atheism is True", because Atheism is the proposition that a certain proposition isn't True".
Let's say P is the proposition that "it is raining outside" and Q is the proposition that ["a certain proposition"] P isn't true, i.e. it is not raining outside.
P: "It is raining outside".
Q. "It is not raining outside".
Does it in any way follow that, because Q is the Proposition that P is not true, therefore Q cannot have a Truth Value itself? I mean, that's an elementary logical fallacy, a non sequitur.
What really follows is that either P or Q must be true, they are mutually exclusive etc. Good reasons for P being true are good reasons Q is not (because one of them must be true), and so on.
Jesus Christ Himself, when it was necessary to establish to the Pharisees the Truth that Christ was the Son of God and a Divine King, and not a mere son of David or human king, as they thought, debated with the Pharisees to establish that Truth: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? [Psa 110:1] If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He [just] his Son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore." (Mat 22)
Whether it's the Pro-Life issue, or the God question, or other such matters, Christians engage in debate and discussion on those subjects because saving Lives or important Truths are at stake.
If someone after diligently considering all the arguments is not convinced, ok, that's his or her prerogative. All Christians would do is amicably disagree. That debate took place in a Christian University, IIRC, Biola. Yet no one harassed or hassled Hitchens in the slightest, just responded to his arguments. Respectful disagreement is important.
Why are there debates in most countries before elections? Because a proper ideology based on Truth and Righteousness should be able to defend and explain itself to the public when facing challenging questions.
If one is a public spokesman for Atheism, and has written books attacking Almighty God, as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al did, then it is reasonable that Christians who are Professors or public speakers, like Craig and others are, are going to challenge that. Not only Craig, but others like Alvin Plantinga, J.P Moreland et al have done that. And if you want to challenge something in the Bible, or something about Christ, or something that Christian wrote, that's the place to do that also. Harris, Hitchens et al did do that with Craig. Dawkins didn't. But he did debate with lesser known Christian speakers. I'm sure there's a reason for that. Lol.
God Bless.
Hitchens: "There's no claim I know to make that "Atheism is True", because Atheism is the proposition that a certain proposition isn't True".
Let's say P is the proposition that "it is raining outside" and Q is the proposition that ["a certain proposition"] P isn't true, i.e. it is not raining outside.
P: "It is raining outside".
Q. "It is not raining outside".
Does it in any way follow that, because Q is the Proposition that P is not true, therefore Q cannot have a Truth Value itself? I mean, that's an elementary logical fallacy, a non sequitur.
What really follows is that either P or Q must be true, they are mutually exclusive etc. Good reasons for P being true are good reasons Q is not (because one of them must be true), and so on.
Jesus Christ Himself, when it was necessary to establish to the Pharisees the Truth that Christ was the Son of God and a Divine King, and not a mere son of David or human king, as they thought, debated with the Pharisees to establish that Truth: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? [Psa 110:1] If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He [just] his Son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore." (Mat 22)
Whether it's the Pro-Life issue, or the God question, or other such matters, Christians engage in debate and discussion on those subjects because saving Lives or important Truths are at stake.
If someone after diligently considering all the arguments is not convinced, ok, that's his or her prerogative. All Christians would do is amicably disagree. That debate took place in a Christian University, IIRC, Biola. Yet no one harassed or hassled Hitchens in the slightest, just responded to his arguments. Respectful disagreement is important.
Why are there debates in most countries before elections? Because a proper ideology based on Truth and Righteousness should be able to defend and explain itself to the public when facing challenging questions.
If one is a public spokesman for Atheism, and has written books attacking Almighty God, as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al did, then it is reasonable that Christians who are Professors or public speakers, like Craig and others are, are going to challenge that. Not only Craig, but others like Alvin Plantinga, J.P Moreland et al have done that. And if you want to challenge something in the Bible, or something about Christ, or something that Christian wrote, that's the place to do that also. Harris, Hitchens et al did do that with Craig. Dawkins didn't. But he did debate with lesser known Christian speakers. I'm sure there's a reason for that. Lol.
God Bless.
