God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint Series (Oxford, England).)

Rating:
Summary: It's close but I believe the Atheist
Review: Christian Philosopher Willaim Lane Craig and Atheist Philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and engaged in a spirited, yet friendly debate on the existence of God. The book is in two parts with three essays in both parts.

The first section, is where Dr. Craig proposes his reasons for faith in God. Dr. Sinnot-Armstrong gives a rebuttle and Craig rebuttles. In the section section, Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong gives an essay for atheism, Dr. Craig rebutts, and Sinnott-Armstrong rebutts.

The only real flaws in the book are that both do not really settle anything. They write past each other often enough as to not always tackel the most revelant assertions. Further, no one deals a "death-=blow" to the other. But this is telling - since debates are not where the issues always lie. Although I like philosophy and apologetics, issues of God normally are found in the lives of others.

All in all, Graig wins because his standard to achieve victory is less. He asserts that theism is reasonable. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong could provide an adequate argument to refute the reasonableness of Dr. Graigs points. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong's standard is much more difficult to achieve although he tries to lessen the burden by asserting he is not making "proofs in the mathmatical sense." Here he is trying to discard the "universial negative" principle. Dr. Sinnot-Armstrong also makes the general "Crusades straw-man" arguement and it backfires because Dr. Craig is able to then introduce "atheists" philosophies that killed more people and that were the logical outworkings of these belief systems.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Debate
Review: God? Is based on two public debates that occurred in 1999 and 2000 between William Craig and William Sinnott-Armstrong regarding the existence of God. In my opinion this is an excellent resource for thoughtful atheists and theists alike. Of the debates I have read on this subject God? is the best.

In the first part of the book Craig opens in defense of God (Christian God), Sinnott-Armstrong rebuts then Craig closes. The second part is structured the other way round with Sinnott-Armstrong opening in defense of atheism; Craig rebuts then Sinnott-Armstrong closes. Throughout the discussion the debaters cover all the pertinent arguments (cosmological, design, existence of evil, revelation etc) and are rigorous and respectful in defending their views.

Those familiar to the area of religious philosophy and apologetics undoubtedly know the work of Bill Craig a brilliant and prolific philosopher. In addition to his formidable intellectual abilities Craig is also an outstanding and experienced debater. As a result, in live debates he often overwhelms even the most capable opponent. This format which allowed the participants more time to formulate their arguments was beneficial. Sinnott-Armstrong is not an experienced debater and this approach helped him to clearly articulate his arguments. As a result, Sinnott-Armstrong puts forward one of the strongest argument for atheism that I have heard.

After reading this debate, I would hope that several things would be apparent to a thoughtful and opened-minded person. First, and most importantly, this is an important question that warrants our consideration. Second, a rational proof of God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt is probably not possible (if it was where would free will be?). Finally, the existence of God is a live intellectual option. From my personal standpoint, as someone who was raised an educated with an atheist/agnostic worldview the last point is the most striking. With respect to who won the debate, It has been my experience that initial assessments are normally emotive and determined by the viewer's assumptions.

There are lots of other debate books out there (and a lot free material on Bill Craig's web-site and the Internet Infidels site), however God? is well worth the purchases.

Rating:
Summary: A Fast-Paced and Incisive Debate.
Review: In this new book, cleverly titled simply "God?", William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong debate the most important question with surprising clarity and wit.

William Lane Craig is an experienced debator with excellent credentials. Over the years he has debated many famous atheists, and is well known for beating almost every opponent hands down. Craig's style is quick and confident, and, in my opinion, his arguments are generally very forceful and convincing. His great effort in this book, while expected, is very much appreciated. He is not afraid to get right down to the issue and into the trenches- which helps the debate to move along at lightning pace.

The real surprise here, in my mind, is the showing by Sinnott-Armstrong. Despite a lack of debating experience, he seems to me to be the best opponent Craig has faced (in any debate I have read). He is quick, witty, and intelligent- advancing objections to almost all of Craig's arguments (in other debates, atheists often just pick a few points of contention, but Sinnott-Armstrong challenges the whole case.)

Both participants in the debate give strong efforts, and it leads to a fantastic and engaging book on the existence of God. If you are looking for a debate on the existence of God, then look no further. This book is highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Debate
Review: ive read a few of these debate books between a christian and an atheist, many starring bill craig, and i have to say this may be one of the best ones out there. keep in mind, the issue of god will never really be resolved, but this debate offers convincing arguments that represents the "truth" on both sides. both scholars articulate well on points and counterpoints.

bill craig, rather well-known in the christian community, lays out solid proofs in which he believes is sufficient to be a christian. sinnott-armstrong counters convincingly with a rather powerful argument in defense of atheism. most of your basic ideas (such as morality, evil, creation, etc), that have been around for years, are revisited here in much more depth.

highly recommended for those desiring a comprehensive view on both sides of this ongoing debate.

Rating:
Summary: one of the best "debate" books out there...
Review: ive read a few of these debate books between a christian and an atheist, many starring bill craig, and i have to say this may be one of the best ones out there. keep in mind, the issue of god will never really be resolved, but this debate offers convincing arguments that represents the "truth" on both sides. both scholars articulate well on points and counterpoints.

bill craig, rather well-known in the christian community, lays out solid proofs in which he believes is sufficient to be a christian. sinnott-armstrong counters convincingly with a rather powerful argument in defense of atheism. most of your basic ideas (such as morality, evil, creation, etc), that have been around for years, are revisited here in much more depth.

highly recommended for those desiring a comprehensive view on both sides of this ongoing debate.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad, not bad at all!
Review: Like a political debate, this one doesn't come to a single unrefutable answer, but adds clarity and perspective to both sides of the argument. Both debaters make solid arguments in places, unlike "authors" such as Vincent Cheung who discard reason and logic in order to make a point. This book was engaging, and less stressful than having the same debate over my family's Thanksgiving dinner.

Rating:
Summary: Great primer of both sides of the issue
Review: Like others reviewers have said, the main purpose of this book isn't to definitively "settle" the issue either way (as if that's possible), but merely to highlight some of the more pertinent issues surrounding the claims of Christianity as well as its various criticisms. The end result, as one reviewer already pointed out, reveals that, far from being solely the realm of crackpots and the "weak-minded", Christianity is as a viable intellectual option (which is not to say, of course, without reproach.)

As for the substance of the debate itself, both writers were highly competent and I found each writer at his best in presenting the case for his respective viewpoint (Chapter 1, 4)

Craig makes a strong case for a finite universe, using widely accepted scientific evidence. He also explains many of the flaws inherent in the various infinite views (oscillating universe, many-worlds hypothesis, etc.), which he, I think rightly, dismisses as ad hoc avoidances of the serious implications which a finite universe seems to imply.

By way of example, Craig shows how the oscillating theory of the universe (i.e. a never-ending series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches) is really dead on arrival because scientists can't get over the theoretic hump of how exactly the universe would "restart" after collapsing in on itself, which seems to be an irreversible process. (I should also probably point out that even the very concept of "collapse" itself is controversial; everyone knows the universe is expanding, but nobody knows whether or not it will continue to do so in the future.)

Of course, the cosmological argument only gets you so far as deism, so Craig continues his presentation with arguments from morality, the resurrection of Jesus, and personal experience, each bringing one closer to the traditional description of the Christian God (i.e. omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, caring, etc.) All of these points are also laid out well, although I wouldn't put as much emphasis on personal experience, myself, since it seems to be so subjective (although Craig apparently recognizes this.)

Sinnott-Armstrong's case for atheism is no less forceful. Indeed, I, like many other reviewers, was taken aback by his directness. For being a first-time debater, he was very incisive in his criticisms. Sinnott-Armstrong's main line of argument revolved around the ever-popular "problem of evil" (i.e. how could a loving God allow so much suffering?) His thesis is that evil is not justified unless it is absolutely necessary for some compensating good. He then proceeds to field many possible rebuttals (some of which I think are straw men; he concedes as much when he says that a few might be "outdated", but still includes them.) He concludes the argument by stating that none of these arguments fulfills this condition, especially in regards to natural evils (disease, earthquakes, etc.)

He also makes arguments from unbelief, and a rather obscure argument surrounding the (im)possible interaction between a timeless God and a temporal world, which he dubs "the problem of action," but these are fairly unimportant in relation to the problem of evil and only comprise the last few pages of his presentation.

I won't mention the rebuttals too much, suffice to say that both sides are more adept at laying their own foundations of belief and defending them than in attacking their opponent's. Sinnott-Armstrong, for example, while putting up a fairly good fight against the cosmological argument and personal experience, makes a poor showing in respect to the argument from morality and the resurrection of Jesus. He believes in objective moral values, but when pressed as to why these should be so, only offers "It simply is. Objectively. Don't you agree?" With respect to Jesus, he is content to throw out the "Christ-myth" theory tying the Easter story to those of ancient fertility gods in other cultures, such as Mithras. This theory was popular in the 20's, but died a quick death because the connections were superficial at best, in addition to the fact that nobody could postulate a plausible link between the pagan cultures and the Judaism from which Christianity arose.

Craig's rebuttal of the problem of evil, on the other hand, seems to me to suffer from too much emphasis on the nature of faith. He argues that if all the other arguments which he presented for the existence of God are true (as he obviously believes they are), then we can rest in good faith, knowing that our apparently unnecessary sufferings in life serve an ultimate purpose. This is all true as far it goes, I suppose, but it doesn't hold much water in a debate. He is arguing against the unconvinced, and only those already convinced will accept that argument (as Sinnott-Armstrong is quick to point out).

Wow--this review is a lot longer than I originally anticipated it to be. I guess I should probably wrap it up here. So what's my final verdict? Who won? Well, it's close, but I think I'm going to have to give Craig the nod in this case. Sinnott-Armstrong's argument from evil is very convincing as far as it goes, but it's resting on a shaky foundation. He didn't do a good enough job in my mind of justifying his belief in objective values without God. He explicitly rejects utilitarianism (citing its many objectionable conclusions) but this in mind seems the only viable moral theory for a coherent atheist to hold. He also cites the various non-religious moral theories that philosophers have devised as examples of atheistic virtue, but without offering further reasons for why I should support them, I have to conclude that they all fall short. Craig didn't really push this point too much, instead taking Sinnott-Armstrong's argument pretty much at face value, which I think was a mistake, but maybe it would've taken him too far afield, or he thought that he had shown the error in the previous section.

Overall, though, a very good book and a solid introduction to a very relevant issue.

Rating:
Summary: Question - settled
Review: This book fails because it doesn't point out that God cannot exist because any being who supposedly knows the future couldn't possibly punish any person it created for 'sinning' when it would've had foreknowledge of the 'sin' taking place.

Moreover, an infinitely intelligent and infinitely compassionate being would not let millions of children be born into poverty or starve to death as infants, nor would he permit earthquakes, strange illnesses and bizare diseases to inflict innocent children from birth.

A being of infinite compassion and intelligence would surely intercede to prevent a little boy or girl from being raped by a stranger or a relative as well as prevent deaths caused by random senseless accidents.

Why would Yahweh create Satan and how could Satan have
'decieved' Yahweh, when the same bible tells us that Yahweh knows every detail of the future? If Satan is the source of all evil in mankind - why did God create him in the first place when he would've known how Satan would turn out before he even created him?

If God is intelligent and compassionate, how long can he sit by and watch mass starvation, rape, disease, natural distasters, poverty, emotional and psychological disorders, etc...happening. He is 'everywhere', right?

How long could you, as a human and not a 'god' - sit by and watch a child starving to death and on what merrit would you refuse to help him or her if you had the power to do ANYTHING YOU WANTED?

Theism is such obvious B.S.

Rating:
Summary: And the winner is...
Review: Though I feel Craig won the debate, I don't think this should be the point of the book. Dialogue between Christians and non-Christians for several reasons needs to be the issue. I thought the book was good, and I was overwhelmed by the kinds of knowledge philosophers (must) know. I'll acknowledge that I'm a beginner in philosophy, and all my training pertains to theology and church history. Still, though I could embrace the majority of the book, I think its arguments--comprehensible in themselves--need elucidation that can be understood in a clearer and more succinct way. I did enjoy the book.