Surely they could have found better debaters than this on such a crucial question. The Christian apologist simply trots out the same tired old arguments that were defeated two centuries ago, and presents them as though they are totally convincing. The atheist decides not to engage his arguments, instead making an unconvincing and silly argument for the incoherence of the idea of God. As far as the atheist, stating that he wasn't going to address the scientific points that the Christian brought up because he has no background, well, if you agree to debate someone, and you know their debating style (as you should, if you've done your homework), then such a statement is simply unacceptable. You should study up. But Nielsen was so committed to arguing his philosophical viewpoint that he allowed weak and easily addressed arguments to hang in the air where they would sound totally convincing to an audience who may have just heard them for the first time, and were psychologically predisposed to believe them. It is left to those responding to the debate to clear that particular hurdle, and they did do a decent job of it. Skip the debate, and just read the responses from Anthony Flew and Keith Parsons. You might also wish to read the one from William Lane Craig, though it really just reiterates the arguments of Moreland. He just does it with a bit more erudition and style. ( )

really good! ( )

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/br_doesgodexist.htm ( )