Christian historian Dr. Wallace Marshall and I have engaged a debate on whether or not enough evidence points to the existence of a god. Background and format are explained with Dr. Wallace’s opening statement. For convenience all entries in the debate will be catalogued here.
Outlines of Our Case Pro and Con
W. Marshall — That the Evidence Points to God
R. Carrier — That the Evidence Points to Atheism
The Cosmological Argument
W. Marshall — Defending the KCA
R. Carrier — Second Reply on the KCA
W. Marshall — Second Defense of the KCA
R. Carrier — Third Reply on the KCA
W. Marshall — Third Defense of the KCA
R. Carrier — Fourth Reply on the KCA
W. Marshall — Fourth Defense of the KCA
R. Carrier — Final Reply on the KCA
The Argument from Indifference
R. Carrier — Defending the AFI
W. Marshall — First Reply on the AFI
R. Carrier — Second Defense of the AFI
W. Marshall — Second Reply on the AFI
R. Carrier — Third Defense of the AFI
W. Marshall — Third Reply on the AFI
R. Carrier — Final Defense of the AFI
W. Marshall — Final Reply on the AFI
The Moral Argument
W. Marshall — Defending the MA
R. Carrier — First Reply on the MA
W. Marshall — Second Defense of the MA
R. Carrier — Second Reply on the MA
W. Marshall — Third Defense of the MA
R. Carrier — Third Reply on the MA
W. Marshall — Final Defense of the MA
R. Carrier — Final Reply on the MA
Future Possibilities
We concluded our debate with the above in August of 2019. We might resume someday to address the arguments from our openings that we didn’t get to deep dive into. Those include Dr. Marshall’s Design (or Fine Tuning) Argument and his aesthetic Argument from Fitness, and my Argument from Religious History and Argument from Non-Location in Space or Time.
one doesn’t ‘engage a debate’ one engages IN a debate ie you’ve engaged him in a debate etc.
Dude. Your English has consistently been poor here, so you really shouldn’t try schooling native speakers in it. You clearly don’t know the grammatical valences of the word engage. For example, “engage a conversation” and “engage a dialogue” are as common idioms as “engage a debate.” Try consulting some dictionaries of usage.
which dictionaries – du tell.
I lookt it up beforhand in 2 Websters / OED
eg
Engage:
to do or take part in something —used with in
engage in healthy activities
engage in bad conduct
I even pointid out solecistic/orthografical errurs in the
On the historicity of Jesus ere tu this.
And I know it’s psychOdelic, It’s accessAry (as in tu murdur)…
and
I know it’s taken a toll OF sumwun….
I know it’s he speaks AS I du (not like)
Hence it is correct English to “engage a conversation,” “engage a dialogue,” “engage a debate.” If you didn’t find that out, you didn’t check.
After reading Dr. Carrier’s 4th reply, I really don’t see how Marshall can respond without at least looking disingenuous, which is why I suspect he’s taking so long to respond. I mean, how do you respond to that?
If this was a boxing match, Dr. Carrier just won via 4th round TKO.
Which is why I love this debate format. No sly rhetorical tricks or high school debate tactics at play. The fact that this formal allows time for proper research and responses, really exposes Christian Apologists for what they are.
Obviously just my opinion, but well done Dr. Carrier!
It’s been a while since the last entry in the debate. Are the two of you working out where to go next, or is Dr. Marshall still looking to create another reply? It seems as of now, regardless of which side you believe, the relevant information has been shared. The readers themselves can determine who is more supported by the actual science and what logical premises to accept in regards to the Kalam.
Just wanting to check that the debate is, in fact, ongoing per the original 3 month timeframe.
Dr. Marshall and I are both traveling. So his delay is understandable at this juncture. Likely he will have something in before close of month.