Monday, June 27, 2011

Debunking Christianity: Dan Barker vs. John-Mark Miravalle

This is a debate between Dan Barker and a Roman Catholic believer named John-Mark Miravalle. I thought that the debate went well for Miravalle but it's unfair for Dan Barker because he had the weaker argument. The one weak part I think about Miravalle's argument were with his theodicy, but Barker was unable to adequately exploit it because of his own weak presuppositions.

Debunking Christianity: Dan Barker vs. John-Mark Miravalle

Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. How can Dan Barker still have the chutzpah to tackle theodicy? Oh, right: inconsistent “thinking.”
    He has stated, “There are no objective moral values in the universe, there are not. We make values in our brain, a value is a function of a brain…we're all basically situational ethicists…”
    Also, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares….what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter], the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.”

    Ok, granted, he is an atheist so this logically follows.

    The point is that, apparently unknowingly, he has solved the “problem of evil.”

    He claims that morals are not absolute because “I can think of an exception in any case.”

    This really is the resolution of the problem of evil (at least the philosophical, logical or theological one but not the emotional one upon which atheists prey): if God has reason(s) for allowing evil, then evil is justified.

    This is not to say that we must know the reason, must agree with the reason, approve of the reason. It is just to say that if God has reason then the problem itself is dispelled. Any parent, for example, knows this.

    When my youngest body was born the nurse stabbed him and I just stood there doing nothing about it when I could have. But I knew that she had to stab that needle into his newborn food in order to check his blood sugar. Thus, I allowed this “evil,” this pain and suffering because I knew better, I had a reason.

  2. "If being had a limit, it would be natural to ask: well what's after thaaaaaat?!"

    John-Mark is an idiot. Nothing would exist beyond existence, not non-being!

    If God consists of the infinity of "that which exists", JM's God would be panentheistic. The universe is part of "that which exists" and "that which exists" is described as God.