S
Shaolen
Guest
Today was Trent Horn’s debate with Dan Barker on the existence of God. Did anyone see it? What happened?
sandiegogoddebate.com/
sandiegogoddebate.com/
- Status
J
JackVk
Guest
Think it’s happening now. Right now, it’s only 7:30 pm Pacific Time.
S
SMA_12
Guest
I wish they would live stream it! I would be rooting for Trent!
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Unless they hammered out a mutually agreed upon definition for “God” before-hand, they’ll likely just end up talking past each other.
M
mab23
Guest
I was there, it was a good debate
Trent Horn did a good job at explaining Aquinas’s evidences for the existence of God as well as the fine tuning argument.
Dan Barker a more seasoned speaker and debater had a lot of replies and arguments, but too often attacked Christianity, prayer, the bible and even rude remarks towards the Church which showed that his resorting to this tactic showed he wasn’t so confident in his arguments.
Trent Horn stuck on the subjects and answered every argument Dan had and even had Mr. Barker side stepping on morality , and calling him out on calling Trent Horns arguments just God of the gaps arguments which Dan Barker also had no real reply to
unfortunately for being at a Catholic university hosted by Catholic Answers I feel the Atheists actually held more of a presence though I do not know if there were more Catholics or Atheists, anyway it seemed like the Atheists were louder and had more questions for Trent Horn - which is why we need to help equip Catholics to be able to stand up for the Faith
during the question and answer section, we had more Atheists line up to ask Trent Horn questions like “What Created God?”, "with the first cause argument and “why the Monotheistic God and not, Aliens or multiple gods?”, “the problem of evil?”… among others that dealt with the Catholic Church on contraception and teaching on what happens to unbaptized babies - which Trent Horn answered every single one with good replies.
Dan Barker was asked questions such as “problems without objective morality in the atheistic worldview”, “how science cannot explain immaterial things like consciousness, thoughts as well as God(Since Dan insisted God is a scientific argument the needs to be scientifically proved)” " and My question to Dan Barker " how his attempt to refute the fine tuning argument was really just throwing an alternate explanation which takes a step backward producing trillions upon trillions upon trillions of universe to explain just one, and pushing the fine tuning argument one step back to the multi-verse (which would need to be finely tuned to create these seemingly infinite amount of universes and what caused the multi-verse generator in the first place?)"
Trent Horn faced a seasoned opponent skilled more in tactics rather than sound arguments, it was a Good debate, on arguments alone Trent wins ! , though Dan Barker produced more responses from the crowd by belittling prayer, the bible and God - even attacking the Church using the recent UN news story and calling the Catholic church an immoral institution which has a horrible problem with priests .
I suggest you get the DVD or CD of the Debate to see or hear from yourself
Trent Horn did a good job at explaining Aquinas’s evidences for the existence of God as well as the fine tuning argument.
Dan Barker a more seasoned speaker and debater had a lot of replies and arguments, but too often attacked Christianity, prayer, the bible and even rude remarks towards the Church which showed that his resorting to this tactic showed he wasn’t so confident in his arguments.
Trent Horn stuck on the subjects and answered every argument Dan had and even had Mr. Barker side stepping on morality , and calling him out on calling Trent Horns arguments just God of the gaps arguments which Dan Barker also had no real reply to
unfortunately for being at a Catholic university hosted by Catholic Answers I feel the Atheists actually held more of a presence though I do not know if there were more Catholics or Atheists, anyway it seemed like the Atheists were louder and had more questions for Trent Horn - which is why we need to help equip Catholics to be able to stand up for the Faith
during the question and answer section, we had more Atheists line up to ask Trent Horn questions like “What Created God?”, "with the first cause argument and “why the Monotheistic God and not, Aliens or multiple gods?”, “the problem of evil?”… among others that dealt with the Catholic Church on contraception and teaching on what happens to unbaptized babies - which Trent Horn answered every single one with good replies.
Dan Barker was asked questions such as “problems without objective morality in the atheistic worldview”, “how science cannot explain immaterial things like consciousness, thoughts as well as God(Since Dan insisted God is a scientific argument the needs to be scientifically proved)” " and My question to Dan Barker " how his attempt to refute the fine tuning argument was really just throwing an alternate explanation which takes a step backward producing trillions upon trillions upon trillions of universe to explain just one, and pushing the fine tuning argument one step back to the multi-verse (which would need to be finely tuned to create these seemingly infinite amount of universes and what caused the multi-verse generator in the first place?)"
Trent Horn faced a seasoned opponent skilled more in tactics rather than sound arguments, it was a Good debate, on arguments alone Trent wins ! , though Dan Barker produced more responses from the crowd by belittling prayer, the bible and God - even attacking the Church using the recent UN news story and calling the Catholic church an immoral institution which has a horrible problem with priests .
I suggest you get the DVD or CD of the Debate to see or hear from yourself
S
suko
Guest
Wow, thanks for the summary! I would’ve loved to have heard the debate in person!
Glad to know, though, that Trent did a good job of defending the faith!
L
leticia70
Guest
I was at the debate, in the overflow room.
I felt Dan Barker was often repetitive because he was trying to use up his time (confusing)? He probably is a more seasoned speaker, but to me, he often sounded muddled in his arguments. When he couldn’t think of an answers, he resorted to using the old testament (i.e., where babies are bashed on rocks) out of context.
Dan Barker was a minister for many years. He was probably very familiar with the bible. My husband thought that, maybe, Dan Barker was trying to lure Trent front the ‘Existence of God’ debate to side debates about the bible. Most likely, he knew many people in the audience were not very familiar with the bible, and was trying to strengthen his point about God’s existence by using the ‘evil’ God allowed in bible, out of context. Although Trent Horn did not allow Dan Barker to move the argument to a debate about the bible, I feel that to some of the audience, bringing that up did plant seeds.
I think Trent Horn was clear, very prepared, citing sources, and easy to understand. I felt Dan Barker sounded muddled, cited very few atheistic sources, was repetitive and belittled Christians as stupid when he didn’t have a good reply to Trent’s points. If being a seasoned debater means what Dan Barker did, well, then he was that.
I hope Trent Horn, at least, planted seeds. Great job.
I wish that I had lined up to ask the following question to Dan Barker: “If God does not exist because there is not scientific measurement of him or his power, then Satan does not exist. How do you explain the recent story in Indiana where a family was recently exorcised. CPS workers, nurses, doctors, police officers, all professionals witnessed what they claim was evil supernatural forces they called “demons.” The boy was seen by the CPS worker and nurse climb up backwards on the wall and do a flip. The boy was seen being picked up and thrown against the room. How do you explain what happened there scientifically?”
I felt Dan Barker was often repetitive because he was trying to use up his time (confusing)? He probably is a more seasoned speaker, but to me, he often sounded muddled in his arguments. When he couldn’t think of an answers, he resorted to using the old testament (i.e., where babies are bashed on rocks) out of context.
Dan Barker was a minister for many years. He was probably very familiar with the bible. My husband thought that, maybe, Dan Barker was trying to lure Trent front the ‘Existence of God’ debate to side debates about the bible. Most likely, he knew many people in the audience were not very familiar with the bible, and was trying to strengthen his point about God’s existence by using the ‘evil’ God allowed in bible, out of context. Although Trent Horn did not allow Dan Barker to move the argument to a debate about the bible, I feel that to some of the audience, bringing that up did plant seeds.
I think Trent Horn was clear, very prepared, citing sources, and easy to understand. I felt Dan Barker sounded muddled, cited very few atheistic sources, was repetitive and belittled Christians as stupid when he didn’t have a good reply to Trent’s points. If being a seasoned debater means what Dan Barker did, well, then he was that.
I hope Trent Horn, at least, planted seeds. Great job.
I wish that I had lined up to ask the following question to Dan Barker: “If God does not exist because there is not scientific measurement of him or his power, then Satan does not exist. How do you explain the recent story in Indiana where a family was recently exorcised. CPS workers, nurses, doctors, police officers, all professionals witnessed what they claim was evil supernatural forces they called “demons.” The boy was seen by the CPS worker and nurse climb up backwards on the wall and do a flip. The boy was seen being picked up and thrown against the room. How do you explain what happened there scientifically?”
S
Shaolen
Guest
wow do you have a link to a news article or something about that exorcism?I was at the debate, in the overflow room.
I felt Dan Barker was often repetitive because he was trying to use up his time (confusing)? He probably is a more seasoned speaker, but to me, he often sounded muddled in his arguments. When he couldn’t think of an answers, he resorted to using the old testament (i.e., where babies are bashed on rocks) out of context.
Dan Barker was a minister for many years. He was probably very familiar with the bible. My husband thought that, maybe, Dan Barker was trying to lure Trent front the ‘Existence of God’ debate to side debates about the bible. Most likely, he knew many people in the audience were not very familiar with the bible, and was trying to strengthen his point about God’s existence by using the ‘evil’ God allowed in bible, out of context. Although Trent Horn did not allow Dan Barker to move the argument to a debate about the bible, I feel that to some of the audience, bringing that up did plant seeds.
I think Trent Horn was clear, very prepared, citing sources, and easy to understand. I felt Dan Barker sounded muddled, cited very few atheistic sources, was repetitive and belittled Christians as stupid when he didn’t have a good reply to Trent’s points. If being a seasoned debater means what Dan Barker did, well, then he was that.
I hope Trent Horn, at least, planted seeds. Great job.
I wish that I had lined up to ask the following question to Dan Barker: “If God does not exist because there is not scientific measurement of him or his power, then Satan does not exist. How do you explain the recent story in Indiana where a family was recently exorcised. CPS workers, nurses, doctors, police officers, all professionals witnessed what they claim was evil supernatural forces they called “demons.” The boy was seen by the CPS worker and nurse climb up backwards on the wall and do a flip. The boy was seen being picked up and thrown against the room. How do you explain what happened there scientifically?”
A
athomemama
Guest
I’m not surprised about the lop-sided number of questions -
(1) the San Diego Atheists/Agnostics posted this note on their website: “Yes, there is going to be a Q&A section after the debate. Please be prepared and get into line quickly, because we are going to be overwhelmed by the number of Catholics in the audience.”
[accessed at http://www.meetup.com/san-diego-atheists-agnostics/events/154969052/ ]
&
(2) the Atheists/Agnostics have the most at risk in this debate [their address for eternity.]
By the way, thank you to the people who were there and shared your experiences/notes! I can’t wait for the CD/DVD to be available!
Y
yellow8yellowM
Guest
I just listened to the debate on the mp3. It was very good but I was a little frustrated that Dan would not really address Trent’s questions. Trent definitely won the debate (although I am biased), but I think he is only to get better and better (assuming he keeps doing these).
D
desales09
Guest
I just listened to the debate. I thought it was very good. Trent Horn used St. Thomas’ arguments for the existence of God, as well as some current scientific arguments (such as the second law of thermodynamics) to prove that the Universe had a beginning and that it must therefore necessarily have a cause. He also pointed to the “fine tuning” argument - the balance of the factors in our Universe that allow for the overwhelmingly unlikely support of life.
Dan Barker argued for the multiverse - that it’s no wonder such a universe as ours exists, because there are many universes, like bubbles in a glass of champagne. In such a multiverse, at least one life-supporting universe must come along sooner or later, just as with an infinite number of poker games, at least one Royal Flush must come along sooner or later.
In the cross-examining segment, Trent Horn very cleverly tried to reveal that, no matter what, an atheist wouldn’t take ANYTHING - no matter how miraculous - as proof for God’s existence. They’ll follow any scientific theory or explanation instead, no matter how outlandish it may be. They’ve already ruled God out. Trent tried to reveal this bent by asking Dan “what WOULD you take as proof of God’s existence?” Dan gave an answer (watch/listen to debate if you want specifics), and Trent asked “But couldn’t you explain this by the multiverse?” thus suggesting that Dan could easily explain away any proof for God by appealing to scientific theories.
Dan Barker did indeed try to push the debate towards indicting what is written in the Old Testament (and even some of the things Jesus did in the NT). He didn’t seem to be concerned about keeping the debate on topic - his strategy (and so many of the other atheists’ strategy) seems to be to throw as much mud as possible at the Old Testament and the Christian God (and the Church) in the hopes of persuading people, not be sound, reasoned arguments, but rather by “bringing people to their senses” by pointing to these “outrageous and ridiculous things” in the Bible. Trent Horn brought it back by saying, “What are we debating tonight?” He insisted on keeping it on topic.
Dan Barker’s other points included the seemingly unconditional promises in the New Testament for answered prayers (“ask, believing, and you shall receive”). He apparently believed that if a God who answers prayers exists, then He must necessarily answer every prayer and petition, whether it’s for good or for ill - a cosmic genie. He also argued that such a God wouldn’t allow the suffering we see in the world. Trent Horn argued that an all-wise God can bring good out of suffering, can compensate those who suffer with the reward of eternal life, and gave examples of how we can even see in this life how suffering can benefit us.
My favorite part of the debate was the closing statement by Trent. He was very articulate and impassioned in his speaking, and pointed to how our perception of goodness, truth, and beauty points to a transcendent reality - the reality of God. I recommend listening to the debate for that final speech alone. It was like the throwing back of a huge, black curtain and letting in sunlight. “See? The Sun does exist. You only need to see it once to know.”
I gave the debate to an agnostic at work. My hope and prayer is that the seeds Trent planted in the debate overwhelm the seeds planted by the opposing side.
Dan Barker argued for the multiverse - that it’s no wonder such a universe as ours exists, because there are many universes, like bubbles in a glass of champagne. In such a multiverse, at least one life-supporting universe must come along sooner or later, just as with an infinite number of poker games, at least one Royal Flush must come along sooner or later.
In the cross-examining segment, Trent Horn very cleverly tried to reveal that, no matter what, an atheist wouldn’t take ANYTHING - no matter how miraculous - as proof for God’s existence. They’ll follow any scientific theory or explanation instead, no matter how outlandish it may be. They’ve already ruled God out. Trent tried to reveal this bent by asking Dan “what WOULD you take as proof of God’s existence?” Dan gave an answer (watch/listen to debate if you want specifics), and Trent asked “But couldn’t you explain this by the multiverse?” thus suggesting that Dan could easily explain away any proof for God by appealing to scientific theories.
Dan Barker did indeed try to push the debate towards indicting what is written in the Old Testament (and even some of the things Jesus did in the NT). He didn’t seem to be concerned about keeping the debate on topic - his strategy (and so many of the other atheists’ strategy) seems to be to throw as much mud as possible at the Old Testament and the Christian God (and the Church) in the hopes of persuading people, not be sound, reasoned arguments, but rather by “bringing people to their senses” by pointing to these “outrageous and ridiculous things” in the Bible. Trent Horn brought it back by saying, “What are we debating tonight?” He insisted on keeping it on topic.
Dan Barker’s other points included the seemingly unconditional promises in the New Testament for answered prayers (“ask, believing, and you shall receive”). He apparently believed that if a God who answers prayers exists, then He must necessarily answer every prayer and petition, whether it’s for good or for ill - a cosmic genie. He also argued that such a God wouldn’t allow the suffering we see in the world. Trent Horn argued that an all-wise God can bring good out of suffering, can compensate those who suffer with the reward of eternal life, and gave examples of how we can even see in this life how suffering can benefit us.
My favorite part of the debate was the closing statement by Trent. He was very articulate and impassioned in his speaking, and pointed to how our perception of goodness, truth, and beauty points to a transcendent reality - the reality of God. I recommend listening to the debate for that final speech alone. It was like the throwing back of a huge, black curtain and letting in sunlight. “See? The Sun does exist. You only need to see it once to know.”
I gave the debate to an agnostic at work. My hope and prayer is that the seeds Trent planted in the debate overwhelm the seeds planted by the opposing side.
S
Shaolen
Guest
hey thanks for that review. I have since bought the mp3 and listened to it and the first time I listened I actually was disappointed and thought that Dan barker won. After listening to it a second time though I saw more how fans stuff was largely off topic. I fear that for the average Joe on the fence though that this won’t bring many people to our side. Please keep us posted about your agnostic friend. I’ll pray for his conversion
D
desales09
Guest
Thanks, Shaolen. You may be right that it isn’t the best thing to give to those on the fence, but I don’t know how receptive she would have been to direct evangelistic/apologetic material (such as Trent Horn’s “Jesus” DVD). A debate seemed like the safer option (safer in terms of her actually receiving it and listening to it). If I’d had the chance to listen to it before giving it to her (she was leaving for another job, and I’d just gotten the DVD), I may have been more reluctant due to, well, the opposing arguments (I just figured Catholic Answers wouldn’t have released it if it had been a bomb). There were some powerful (however fallacious) points made by Dan Barker, and some cheap shots made at the Catholic Church which Trent wasn’t able to respond to due to the rules of the debate. But Trent did make some good arguments, and his closing statement was powerful. It’s in God’s hands now. Thank you kindly for your prayers.
- Status