Apologetics 315: Sean McDowell vs. James Corbett Debate MP3 Audio

I have come to expect a lot of great resource from Apologetics 315 and this post continues to exceed my expectations. Here is a debate where Sean McDowell takes an atheist almost twice his age on the question: Is God the best explanation of Moral values? I had hoped James Corbett would have brought a different argument  - something new I had not heard before but he didn't. McDowell was able to really almost predict what Corbett was going to say and beat him to it - along with a powerpoint presentation.  Corbett's argument was the same tired atheist arguments
a. You don't need to believe in God to be moral
b. Morality evolved in people because it was beneficial.
c. The Bible presents outdated ideas of morality that we now know bettter (ie slavery, mistreatment of women, racism, ect)
d. More people have been killed because of religion than anything else due to peole thinking they were absolutely right in what they believe.
e. Doubt is better because Corbett admits that he could be wrong  and religious people have no proof that they are right about a divine law giver.
f. Religious people have done horrible things. 

So in other words, for Sean McDowell this was a slam dunk. I doubt he even worked up a sweat because points "a" and "f" were not even debated..anyone who has thought through this would agree - All human being are capable of understand morality apart from what they believe and we don't do it perfectly. The point that McDowell homed in on is the questions about "Who's morality is it if its relative and where did it come from and how? This is how he won the debate because Corbett could not answer that.  No atheist can God is the best answer to the question.

McDowell's apologetic like William Lane Craig's does not depend on the Bible's infallibility or truth to be valid. This is why I think he didn't spend much time refuting Corbett's weak arguments against the Bible. He did speak to point "d" showing that the number of people who were killed on the actions of religious people dwarf those who were killed by atheists. I also thought it was interesting for Corbett to admit that he could be wrong but he doubted that McDowell was right. I mean that by the time you know for sure through experience it could be too late to change your mind and make a change.

The one part of McDowell's argument that I dind't like was that he appealed to Free Will. I know he looks at Free Will from an Arminian perspective and I'm not sure if it can be truly defined that way. I quickly agree that we all have will and make decisions that have eternal worth and ramifications but I think we need to be more careful on how we see how it relates to God's sovereignty because we are far from sovereign in running this universe by our choices.

Apologetics 315: Sean McDowell vs. James Corbett Debate MP3 Audio