Dan Barker - John-Mark Miravalle "Does God Exist?" KU

[MrKeenoRossi]

If god really does exist, and we're created in his/its image, then there would be no denying or debating it.

If god omniscient and all powerful, then he obviously created each one of us knowing exactly how we would turn out - which means that he created people to reject the claims that he/it exists.

That would mean he/it created a lot of people with the express intent to torture them in hell.

Anybody who has interest in an intellectually honest discussion, can't get around this. Wake up!

[MrKeenoRossi]

@Porfavador - Atheism isn't a claim that "god doesn't exist" so why would you expect Barker to utter that statement? Atheism is the rejection, as truth, of the claim that god(s) do indeed exist. There's a difference.

Atheism is irrelevant to personal feelings, desires, or hopes (wishful thoughts). Atheism is only concerned with truth. In that, atheism doesn't make any truth claims ...but rather it is simply reluctant to accept the claims that god(s) exists as being true.

[vikingaprinsessan]

Gosh, Dan is soooo smart!

[Porfavador]

What's up with Dan Barker? He keeps mentioning that if god is real he must stink and he keeps referring to the bible like it is book of doctrine, the bible is a historical book for the most part. Anyways I listened through this entire debate and I didn't hear Dan say the phrase " God does Not exist" once. If anyone can find a time where he specifically says that please write a comment with the time. With all this I don't see how Dan could have won at all.

[b14blah]

Dan Barker did well...and won the debate easily.

[wubbadubdub]

nope. he never had an idea. John Mark is a complete idiot.

[wubbadubdub]

10 minutes in. tell me this jackass says something meaningful eventually. this is pathetic.

[thecoreycorndog]

MAGNETS ARE MAGIC!

[zappafile]

So apparently metaphor upon metaphor equals proof. Weak argumentation.

[thelws]

I honestly think the only way to shut the atheists up is for god to show up and perform miracles.

The only way to shut up the theists is when science can prove almost everything.

Both I believe will not happen in my lifetime. Which is sad. But between the 2 of these, the one that I think is most probably to happen is that science will eventually prove most of everything and that religion will not be able to come back. But until then, good entertainment for the curious minds.

[zappafile]

@thelws Nice!

[DeconversionCentral]

the bottle is the "proof"!

[petelovesrat]

@DeconversionCentral haha,, that was comical

[Immy1993]

John Mark: by listening to you all of us have become 'stupider'...you need help. Please get it on tax payer money. Please stop talking!!

[IspanasOnTop]

THE THING IS that JM does not have strong arguments to discuss, he has an abstract definitions which he believes in and when he is asked for a proof, he uses his funny-voice and complete disrespect for an opponent. why? On the other hand, DB calmly answers his questions, as a gentleman should.

DO NOT ATTACK A PERSON, ATTACK HIS IDEAS, which JM completely failed to do so.

[jazzx251]

I can't believe I watched all of that.

There were many times when John Mark came across as a joke debater. It was like he was a parody of William Lane Craig.

The so-called "proofs" for God's existence were pathetic, and easily shot down - but delivered with a smug "so duu-uhh?! it must be true!" tone of voice every time.

John Mark was a "non-essential feature" of this debate as a result.

[lhurien]

@jazzx251 ditto, i listen to alot of these debates and JM's evidence was horrible. he should find something better to do with his time. also what an annoying whine in his voice. how can anyone listen to him.

[stephenjeff]

I love DAN BARKER!!!

[matthimf]

Does the existence of the existence of God exist? Seriously: If God existed there would be no debate.

[SamTASTICish]

It seems that, if Barker is correct, the only way for God to be truly good is for man to lack free will--free will is, in other words, a proof that He does not exist. Is that an accurate reading of his argument? Further, can a thing that passes from non-existence back into non-existence in a meaningless, purposeless world that also will come to an end--can such a thing itself have meaning? If there is no meaning in the world, then belief in the truth is unimportant, and this debate is pointless.

[robaquarian]

his proofs are stronger then dan's idea bout a prediction coming true? how? all of his "proofs" are a priori not empirical. and they are not even good ones.

[robaquarian]

how to we know the competent interpreter of the bible doesn't have conflict of interest? why through the history of the catholic church have these interpretations continued to change? the catholic church just ended the doctrine of purgatory for children. the Catholics generally wait for secular society to make up the rules then they come around later out of expediency.

[robaquarian]

the 10 commandments came before Abraham. the 10 commandments said thou shalt not kill. then he commands Abraham to kill his son. and he commands genocide of many times of woman and children after he said not to kill.

[petmensan]

@robaquarian Abraham was before the ten commandments, he was in the middle of Genesis and the commandments were Exodus 20. However some of the genocides did come after, including the murder of some 3000 right when Moses came down the mountain. He wiped out a bunch of Israelites for worshipping a cow.

[sweeeeeper]

"If being had a limit, you have to explain what comes after that." - JM arguing for an infinite God.

If existence had a limit, nothing would exist past the limit of existence. John-Mark's 3rd argument instantly falls apart immediately.

[nemodatquodnonhabet]

@sweeeeeper Really? You don’t see how it’s problematic to say that beyond a certain limit existence (i.e., that which exists) doesn’t exist? That’s like saying that beyond a certain limit circles aren’t circular. Doesn’t get much more contradictory than that.

[sweeeeeper]

@nemodatquodnonhabet Circles can't be circular in an area where there aren't any circles to speak of! lol. You also dont need to fill up an infinite continuum that john-mark dreamed up. Nevermind that existence is a state of being, not a quantity.

"Doesn’t get much more contradictory than that." JM does! He says that things would exist past a limit of existence. That's like saying there's a north of the north pole.

[nemodatquodnonhabet]

@sweeeeeper "Lol"? Dude, you laugh too easy. Contradictions are false and tautologies are true, in any area, under any set of conditions. And it's a contradiction to say circles can't be circular, or that being doesn't exist.. It's weird how you'd rather have an "area" where contradictions are okay than accept the conclusion that God exists.

Also, JM says nothing can't exist -- but nothing (i.e., non-being) would exist if being had a limit; so being doesn't have a limit. Pretty simple.

[sweeeeeper]

@nemodatquodnonhabet "It's weird how you'd rather have an "area" where contradictions are okay" You obviously skipped over the part where I thought JM's infinite continuum was "dreamed up".

You can't have a quantitative continuum of a quality of being (existence). If somebody is alive or dead, it's an either-or. There are no quantities of deadness just like there's no quantity of existence. Infinite existence is meaningless.

This incoherent area wouldn't exist if it's past existence!

[retro99ify]

WHERE DID THIS TRAILER-TRASH WITH CARTOONISH EGO JOHN MIRAVALLE COME FROM? JESUS HE'S SUCH AN EMBARRASSMENT, BUT HE'S A CATHOLIC SO I GUESS IT'S OK

[mightymook333]

I think Dan Barker was a pretty good demonstration of how many atheists don't use reason, but kinda fall back on their emotionally charged one-liners that don't pertain to the argument. Many times Dan dodged the argument by coming back with simple, but emotionally charge, atheist bumper-sticker! Prayer answering?....I think that's a little lame. I honestly believe atheists could reason better by putting aside the sappy stuff and start reasoning through the cause of our existence through logic

[ragna120k]

@mightymook333 lol are you serious? christians, if they ran out of argument, they'd say "you're persecuting me" Now if that's not emo shit then i don't know what is.

[kainen789]

this Jm joker is a fricking moron!!

[AR333]

I'm a fan of Barker, but how the heck did he not understand John's question about necessary vs. contingent entities. That's undergrad level philosophy: that X exists either by chance or of necessity. That homo sapiens happened on earth is contingent: i.e. we didn't HAVE to be here, perhaps if the meteor never killed the dinosaurs, we wouldn't be. I disagree completely with the argument, but Barker's answer to it made no sense. He either misheard the question or needs to revisit the arguments.

[justbizun]

That pro-god guy should make every christian ashamed.

[kataang321]

Dan Barker is certainly my favorite atheist debater. ^_^

[ReligionPutrifies]

Dan Barker did great as usual- this tool that attempted to "debate" him has got to be the worst debater I've ever seen! Not to mention his continuously high pitch raising of his voice- what an annoying human being!

[archetypique]

This is the worst debate I've ever seen. Miravale's "argument" was complete and utter nonsense. It made no sense whatsoever.

Good job M. Barker debating this idiot.

[obie89]

The Atheist beat the Bible harder than the Christian! lol.

[obie89]

I think Dan Barker was trying to disprove the Christian God. He certainly didn't respond to the concept of an abstract God...

[redchango]

@obie89 - which is the way to go, right? You don't have to disprove the abstract god to disprove the Christian one.

[kucatholic1]

Lest the 'source' nit-pickers attack on this wall, the following distinction is helpful:

Neither JM or I mean 'source of evil' as 'creator of evil' (there is no creator or conduit of a thing 'evil') - we are answering the question 'why is there evil'. Answer - creatures exercise free agency. Classic...

God creates and sustains the being of free wills other than His own, which can choose privation of good (evil).

[kucatholic1]

Source of evil - not a thing. Source is free will, an attribute of God shared by His creatures. Neither evil nor its source are things. If evil is a thing, what is it made of? How much does it weigh? JM can talk about evil because he believes in God, and therefore the possiblity of the rejection of God. For an atheist to use the word 'evil' is more problematic - what is evil, exactly? If you want to talk about it it had better be a real thing, because it's your favorite'proof' against God

[sweeeeeper]

@kucatholic1 "If evil is a thing, what is it made of?" This parody is laughable, you just ignored what I said "The source of evil must meet the ADJECTIVE of evil (didn't call evil a "thing")". I was talking about it's source being a thing. If conscious entities are the source of evil, the weight of an average guy is about 185 lbs.

"For an atheist to use the word 'evil' is more problematic" I mentioned evil in showing why JM's claims contradict each other. I didn't argue the existence of evil

[macroman52]

@kucatholic1 Have you watched Bart Erhman on the problem of evil? He thinks the free will argument is weak, as do I, because 1) it doesn't account for much 2) good people violate other people's free will if those other people are doing very bad things, (prison etc) and we think that's good, so why doesn't god do the same?

[redchango]

@kucatholic1 - "Evil" is a willful assault upon the well-being of a conscious creature.

[mindwis3]

@kucatholic1

"If evil is a thing, what is it made of? How much does it weigh?"

Right... how about:

"If god is a thing, what is it made of? How much does it weigh?

"For an atheist to use the word 'evil' is more problematic - what is evil, exactly?"

it's not problematic at all.

It's a concept, a label just like " luck" or "good" or "bad".

suffering that is willingly and knowingly caused is what we LABEL "evil" or "bad".

"because it's your favorite'proof' against God"

no it isn't.

[DeconversionCentral]

@kucatholic1

Evil being real? wow, come down. You do understand some people see evil as a spiritual manifestation, with demons and devils at every corner.

Others view evils as simply things that personally disgust them, possibly making them physically and psychologically dissonant.

Gathering coherent evidence and always understanding we could be wrong, so we use the tool that works best, until another is found more capable to help us understand better that which we don't.

Bible = Evil?

[petelovesrat]

@kucatholic1 Evil is a word we use to describe extremely bad behaviour. And by that I mean actions or statements that are contrary to what society as a collective has decided we must and/or ought not take/make. Offcourse there can always be exceptions to some if not all of these rules given extraordinary circumstances.

[ballasgleek]

@kucatholic1 If God is a thing, what is he made of ? How much does he weigh ? I trust you see the ridiculousness of your argument ?

[bluesaxnov1]

@sweeeeeper There's something like a consensus in natural theology that evil isn't a positive, existing "thing." It's a privation, that is, it's a diminishing in the creature of the full participation in God's existence which it ought to have. So it's not an addition to anything, and it's not a subtraction from God. It's a subtraction (self-inflicted) of the creature's limited share in divine goodness.

[dfvish]

@bluesaxnov1 Congratulations, you just showed how sophisticated theology is a non-subject.

[sweeeeeper]

@bluesaxnov1 Evil isn't a thing? I, like JM, referred to the SOURCE of evil. It would be irrational to say the source of something isn't a thing. If it's not a "thing", why would JM talk about it?

The source of evil must meet the ADJECTIVE of evil (didn't call evil a "thing"), otherwise the idea is meaningless. If nothing can "exist as an addition to God", nothing can exist other than God. Without anything other than god existing, God must be the source of evil. Therefore, GOD IS EVIL.

[Savage911a]

Mark thinks a waterbottle is proof of God. Seriously. How can anyone think this guy won. He basically repeats the same garbage over and over. He provides NO EVIDENCE for god, instead he provides "proofs" which are flawed because they are only true by definition not by verification.

[mdkram123]

It seemed that Dan Barker was just trying to tear down Christianity and belittle JM's personal beliefs. However, the debate was not about Christianity or the Bible-it was supposed to be about the existence of God. JM presented 3 solid points and Barker really had none (unless you count his comments about Christianity/the Bible). Also, Barker really didn't make much of a dent in any of JM's proofs. 

[mdkram123]

While I doubt many people will convert after hearing this debate, I do think it shows how, while many understandably do not agree with the logic of the existence of God, it is, by no means, unreasonable.

It is a philosophical questions that will be debated until the end of time, but to dismiss the possibility of the existence of God for "reason" is contrary to reason.

[rgruters]

It's a shame really because I know that folks exist out there who are classically trained atheists and JM has the ability to go toe to toe with them. Oh well, hopefully one of these days we'll see JM argue a Bernard Shaw...

[rgruters]

This is apparent in his response by his inability to reasonably argue and refute JM's three points. He just pokes fun and tries to win popular appeal. The argument of an atheist is always a 'me against the world' position and in order to win in the court of popular opinion the "me" has to be cool.

[rgruters]

JM had excellent analogies and that's the key to winning a debate. Very Chestertonian in his delivery. I think however that his arguments are beyond DB. DB does not have the education or more exactly, the worldview, with which to even comprehend, much less refute, JM's arguments.

[Savage911a]

Mark clearly doesn't undestand the difference between proofs and evidence, yet he fails to provide either in this debate.

[johnnyp76]

if miravalle spoke to me that patronisingly in real life, i'd punch him in the face. his views on foreknowledge are naive.

[Smilevil1]

I got evidence for unicorn! jejeje Good one

[timh7403]

Dan says in his closing statement says there is "no purpose of life, that is the truly good news". So doesn't that indicate that he understands that there are things that exists that do not NEED to exist? He seemed to have some trouble grasping that in the cross-section. Dan's best weapon was denial and accusations, as apposed to the Truth, John Mark's weapon of choice.

[Porfavador]

I don't remember Mr.Barker ever saying the words, God does not exist. In this debate all he did was give God a bad rap. From a debate standpoint Mr.Miravalle would be the winner. He presented reasonable evidence for the existence of God, and in return in a complex way Mr.Barker called his evidence stupid and said he didn't like it, but opinion doesn't win a debate.

[ThePedrolsj]

the argument is so lame that can be used to disprove de cause, ex:

A perfect creation is more perfect if the creator is not perfect, for an example, if a blind kid with no arms paint a perfect copy of monalisa, the copy will be better than a copy of monalisa painted for an healthy artists, therefor, to the god creation be perfect the creator (god) must have the biggest disadvantage, which is Non Existence.

PS. Lawyers really sick me

[ThePedrolsj]

the argument is so lame that can be used to disprove de cause, ex:

A perfect creation is more perfect if the creator is not perfect, for an example, if a blind kid with no arms paint a perfect copy of monalisa, the copy will be better than a copy of monalisa painted for an healthy artists, therefor, to the god creation be perfect the creator (god) must have the biggest disadvantage, witch is Non Existence.

PS. Lawyers really sick me

[vteves100]

Seriously!?! John actually considers his points to be proofs of gods existence? This guy is 'slightly' delusional

[lindseylarson]

Also, it was odd that Mr. Barker didn't address any of John Mark's arguments...

[lindseylarson]

Miravalle did fantastic. Way to go John mark. You rocked him. Lots of prayers headed up for Dan Barker...

[johnnyp76]

@lindseylarson are you serious? miravalle had some really naive philosophical arguments that have been well and truly refuted. he was not only patronising, but wrong.

[niginit]

This theist insists on speaking exactly like Dinesh D'sousa. This is gonna be a long and annoying debate and if the commenters below are correct, Dan won't help it along. :(

[bcreason]

Let me see if I got JM's main argument straight.

Anything that exists that doesn't have to exist requires a reason to exist therefore God exists.

Errors:

God of gaps / Argument from ignorance. I don't know how things came to exist therefore God.

Playing with man made definitions/language rather than reality.

Non Sequitor.

At least I never heard this one before.

JM was so smarmy arrogant and so completely illogical, I just wanted to hit him with a logic stick.

[unsungbaker]

@RomansPwnedJesus I think Barker has performed better at previous debates because he's never had such an intellectually prepared opponent. I think it's obvious that he's just used to the bible bashers. Also, I'm not convinced that he doesn't believe in God himself. He just sounds angry that his prayers were never answered, or that he was convinced for so long that the bible is all you need.

[RomansPwnedJesus]

@unsungbaker Barker has debated Cardinal George Pell. I think he had difficulty with an extremely unusual form of the ontological argument which he wasn't prepared for at all. Although, the idea that's he's a closeted theist sounds ridiculous, imo.

[JoeBible]

That was painful. Barker is much better by pen than by mouth. Any skilled debater would have devoured Mr. Miravalle. Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins wouldn't bother with such an inadequate challenger, though each would have made folly of the debate. I would love to see Matt Dillahunty address Mr. Miravalle's arguments.

What I found most humorous was the way Miravalle made the a priori assertion that a god's existence had been proven. Not even the best apologist debaters even hint at such a notio

[mahfood]

A much better debate, I think, was once had by Fr. Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell. Search for those names on Youtube, and two parts will pop up, each about 10 minutes long. I can't post links in this field for some reason.

[unsungbaker]

Philosophy 101 would have helped Mr. Barker in this debate. Also, understanding how debate works would have been great. Instead of truly debating Mr. Miravalle's argument, Barker mostly talked about his disappointment in the bible. Since Mr. Miravalle didn't use the bible in any of his proofs, it was irritating how Mr. Barker kept bringing it up. It seems that his confusion and experience with the bible and protestantism is mainly what fuels his disbelief in God. He was a disappointing atheist.

[RomansPwnedJesus]

@unsungbaker Barker has performed much better in previous debates

[BunnyMan456]

I'm glad this debate's been uploaded, because when I saw it there were two audience members seated in the back righthand corner of the auditorium who didn't understand that I wasn't there to hear them snicker and talk throughout.  Granted, some of the comments were quite inspiring, like "No," and, "Wrong ha ha ha." That powerful commentary aside, thanks for giving me an opportunity to finally hear a debate I was physically at.

[BeforeTheNoose]

Starts at 6:00 . Cheers for upload. Go Dan!

[bn16fan]

I'M NUMBER TWO! I'M NUMBER TWO! Oh, great job, JM, no shame!