Over the last week or so, quite a few people have asked me for my reaction to The God Debate which took place between Trent Horn and Dan Barker, entitled “God: Supreme Being or Imaginary Friend?”.
I think it’s a hard to review a debate objectively, but I can definitely say that I enjoyed the experience. It was certainly well-attended, with both the debating chamber and the overflow room being standing room only. Apart from one cheap shot from Dan towards the end, it was a calm and respectful dialogue.
There were a few things as to the debate format that I would have liked to have been different. I’ve listened to a lot of debates on various subjects and I always end up wishing that there could be more time for cross examination, since I think that’s where the real debate actually happens. However, I know a lot of people think the debate is more constructive when the debaters speak in rounds.
The section I would have particularly liked to have structured differently was the Q&A. I thought the time allotted for each section should have been halved, reducing the time to a sixty second answer and thirty second rebuttal. In my opinion, the questioners were given a little too much freedom and probably should have been moderated a little more heavily. There seemed to be a disproportionate number of questions to each debater and those who asked Trent questions were often wildly off topic, raising issues such as contraception and limbo! This was actually something which Dan did during the debate as well, straying from the topic at hand (the existence of God) and instead wandering into areas such as Biblical criticism, the efficacy of prayer etc. On the occasions when Dan spoke about the Bible I was a little horrified by some of his Biblical interpretations, particularly given that he used to be pastor. For example, he asserted that Jesus told people that they should castrate themselves. I really hope he didn’t preach that message when he led a congregation!
With regards to the debaters themselves, both presented themselves well. Dan had the far greater debating experience and I think this came across in his early delivery, whereas Trent took a little more time to warm up coming into his own later, although this might perhaps be due to the fact that arguments for theism first require the laying of a sound philosophical base.
Looking at my notes from the debate, I could say much more, but you don’t have to read my analysis when you could listen to the debate yourself! The MP3 of the debate is now available for $5 from Catholic Answers:
Before I took a break for Advent I posted a quotation from Ravi Zacharias which related to what is known as “The Moral Argument” for the existence of God. I had intended to do a longer post on this subject at some point in the future because I think it’s one of the more interesting arguments in favour of theism.
