Is God Dead? Michael Tooley vs Peter Kreeft

April 2008 - Wheaton College

Atheist Michael Tooley, (Professor of Philosophy and College Professor of Distinction, University of Colorado, Boulder) vs Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft (Professor of Philosophy, Boston College).

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Peter
• Kreeft
• Michael
• Tooley
• Debate
• Atheism
• Christianity
• God
• Existence
• Wheaton
• College

[isomerised]

The atheist’s first argument of logical probability is wrong. If the probability of the existence of God is to be calculated mathematically, then the number of possibilities should be two: either God exists or He does not exist. “Borrowing” the possible NATURES of God, which by the way are all based on the assumption that God does exist, and then magically transforming them into THREE arbitrary possibilities of the existence of God is a desperate attempt to cheat in a debate against Kreeft.

[MrOmniFreak]

Peter Kreeft has such a loving natutre about him, I really enjoy hearing him speak about anything really...

[Dathinkingman]

@isomerised but we are talking about the probability that a Good god exist not that a God exist. based on that argument we cannot be atheist about god (as his chances are 50%) . but we can be atheist about a Good god (i.e. a theistic conception of god). 

[CoolThisIsMyUsername]

@isomerised I agree. And Tooley becomes rather desperate around 52:00 when he begins to argue against desire from what he feels to be his own perfected contentment. You can tell he just wants to call Kreeft an idiot, then run away from the assembly real fast.

[CoolThisIsMyUsername]

@CoolThisIsMyUsername In addition, Tooley seems to think that an established and observable moral equilibrium would be resultant of a reasonable manifestation of a balanced, but not necessarily unified, god-like force(s). This is a rhetorical argument for dualism perfected, or to put it plainly, tightrope-walking with just enough gravity to never pull you off the rope. Basically, this type of dualism would have Utopia eternally teetering on a fence. It's a bad argument for Atheism and Theism.

[CoolThisIsMyUsername]

Tooley, in defense of Atheism, surprisingly implies that human beings, because of an apparent, pain-receptive consciousness, are consequentially of greater value than what he calls "natural evils" (i.e. tsunamis, earthquakes, etc). When he explains that "innocent people" are unfortunately killed by a tsunami he is implying, to his own fault, a authoritarian chain of moral certitude that favors the apparent consciousness of man.

[CoolThisIsMyUsername]

@Ohyewildthong The universe as we know it (and the concept of the universe as we don't know it) is now considered to have been birthed by some sort of eternal energy: the big bang. You might call this an eternal transfer of energy. No universal energy is ever lost or created, though I think it's helpful to add the idea of osmotic energy: perhaps our big bang was an osmotic leak or transfer of eternal energy from one universe, or whatever, to another.

[jesusmetal92107]

@detsufaigo don't jynx it ;)

[detsufaigo]

AH, Finally an intelligent and respectful debate on youtube.

[nzjoel1234]

@brindow1 Are we purely driven by instincts or can we freely chose to do what is against our instincts?

If we are purely driven by chemical instincts then you could theoretically predict exactly what we would do, given the complete state of our brain and the complete state of the world around us.

[nzjoel1234]

@brindow1 I did not say that if you believe in free will there is a God.

I said that if you believe in free will, then you admit that there is a law which has more power than the laws of the physical sciences.

I then just made a side note that this power could be the same power used in miracles. (This note is not part of my argument just an interesting comment)