Jacoby-Shermer Debate (8/10)

[This is Dr Shermer's rebuttal statement.]

The debate between international Christian speaker Douglas Jacoby and agnostic and skeptic Michael Shermer took place Saturday June 23, the highlight of the 2007 International Apologetics Conference, sponsored by the Apologetics Research Society. The debate topic: Does God Exist?

Dr. Shermer is one of the three or four most famous atheist / agnostic scholars in the world, author of 12 books and President of the Skeptic Society. He has held dozens of debates, appeared on Oprah, 20/20, Dateline, Tom Snyder, Larry King Live and The History Channel. Dr. Jacoby, director of the Athens Institute of Ministry, has spoken in hundreds of cities in some 80 nations.

This exciting event was held before a packed house, with an overflow crowd watching close circuit monitors outside the venue. Kedron Jones (Board member of ARS) was moderator and affable host. Shermer and Jacoby both bring their best analytical skills to this debate. The interchange is lively, with both speakers willing to concede points made by their opponent. You will benefit greatly from weighing the arguments put forth. Douglas' clear and incisive arguments for the existence of God are persuasive. He argues from cosmology (both its creation and its complexity). and the unmistakable fact that moral absolutes are part of reality. Shermer makes the case that religions are socially constructed, historically dependent, and that the faith you adhere to and the god you believe in depend largely on when in history and where in the world you were born.

The two-hour debate is lively, engaging and instructional. You can watch each speaker's opening, rebuttal, rebuttal summary, and conclusion here at YouTube. For the entire debate in one DVD, however, including the 40+ minute Q&A session, please visit www.douglasjacoby.com. The Skeptics Society website is www.skeptic.com.

To post further comments, please visit Jacoby's forum at www.jacobyblogs.com.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• jacoby
• shermer
• debate
• god
• exist
• evidences
• apologetics

[FeelOrange91]

its ok to say nobody knows..

[jamesblond0069]

Shermer clearly wins this debate hands down. Jacobys arguments my sound intelligent but deep down its so fucking stupid! Jacoby is a complete moron. In debates between atheist and theist, the Atheist ALWAYS winsALWAYS!!! Why? Simple. Evidence. Logic. and Common Sense. Something that theists DONT have.

[CarmineFragione]

The viewpoint is the revealing portion, The world is here, it is all around us , but what does it all mean ? Is it happenstance, and though the odds were farfetched, we are here alive and have a portion of a great miracle, but then , all comes to nothing, there is no meaning to the gift of life and the moment ? The Moment has no meaning to Eternity ? I think not. the moment is always and always will be attached to all times, and the soul that doubts God, is the small mind .

[CarmineFragione]

@1empathy  It takes one to know one .

[1empathy]

@CarmineFragione every comment you post confirms that you are a fuckwit ;o)

[CarmineFragione]

There is a certain Grain of Observable Data of human behavior to describe it as alive and Intelligent. It is like blowing up a photograph to the limits of it's definition or grain , so it just becomes a fog of dots and means nothing. And to observe a human behavior, which we accept is a living entity, so finely, so small in the duration of observation by time, that what we see is inadequate to conclude.  To hear only one note of a song, makes it hard to recognize it even as a song,

[CarmineFragione]

God is easy to prove as a Verb. If all the parts assemble to act out as the whole, then the general behavior rises above the parts themselves and an Intelligent Behavior is simply Behavior and not Random, If the Behavior is numerically discussed as more than just a bunch of Static Parts at Rest, but things are correlating , then at least the Behavior is definable as Intelligent and so the Behavior stands as a sort of description of something more than just a loose association, as God.

[CarmineFragione]

God is a consideration of the Placebo being the rule, not the Matter. So God can one day lift a stone, and then next, entirely ruled by the desire of His Mind, God considers to lift the stone and so God is Transformative by the Placebo of an Intelligent Desire, not the mechanics of Material Problems. Even with us, Motivation makes the difference if we can pole vault the top tier, but without proper motivation , we then fail. So it is not the Material Limit, it is a Placebo Acting Out.

[dwheel39]

@jmg94j RE: "If I steal from someone, or assault someone, I am causing harm to that person, and that person may in turn, want to cause harm to me, causing a vicious cycle. "

That seems to be an explanation for social ethics or behaviors but says nothing of the ontology of morality itself. A higher morality (virtue) doesn't "not harm because i may be harmed". This would be a rather low level of morality, wouldn't it? Self sacrifice, putting others first etc can't be explained that way.

[jmg94j]

@dwheel39 Morality has an easily explainable natural cause. If I steal from someone, or assault someone, I am causing harm to that person, and that person may in turn, want to cause harm to me, causing a vicious cycle. Conversely, helpful actions usually have good consequences and the more people help each other, the more successful that society will be. It is the desire for all of us to live in a peaceful, harmonious society that decide our morals. It is nothing supernatural, just simple logic.