Friday, January 09, 2009

Matt Slick vs. Edwin Kagin on the existence of God

Sorry for this being 15 videos. That's YouTube for ya. Anyway, I thought this was an excellent debate. But then again, i'm particularly biased, because I use the transcendental argument as well in my discussions with atheists. Hope you enjoy.


Brian said...

That was no debate; that was a circus.

It is clear that Kagin doesn't have any understanding of philosophy and therefore couldn't address Slick's argument regarding logic. In addition, Slick's argument was, in large part I think, over the audience's head. (not that I don't think that TAG has no merit; I do. However, in this case, Kagin's shoot-from-the-hip thinking couldn't even address it.) Even at the end of the debate the term logic was not being used the same way on both sides.

Unfortunately, I felt like the debate was largely an exercise in futility. It would be better for Matt to take on someone with a little philosophical training, rather than a fundamentalist atheist using all the trite quips and snappy comebacks with no argument to bring.

Like I said... a circus. But thanks for posting it. Still something to learn from it in terms of tactical approach and effective communication... that is, seeing what does and does not work / understanding your opponent / knowing your audience, etc.

Mike-e said...

You know what, I pretty much agree with you now that I think about it. I don't know if Matt was necessarily going over everyone's head, because most Christians are raised with an evidentialist apologetic. So the TAG argument is just going to not make much sense as it is. I remember the first time I heard the Bahnsen/Stein debate, I was pretty confused. But as I listened to it more, I understood what was going on.

But yeah, Kagin was not a good opponent. I totally agree with you on that. But then again, its not always easy to get atheists to debate publicly. And Christians need to be equipped to be able to respond to this particular brand of atheists; the ones with the really bad arguments.