(Text: “Debating an Atheist — Round Four“, Soli Deo Gloria, August 3, 2012)
In his response to Pastor Feinstein’s third post, Russell Glasser raises 5 very good points:
- Both Stephen and Russell should agree that some concepts are axiomatic, requiring no explanation. For Stephen, the axiom is God. For Russell, reality and logic are axiomatic, and God is a needless insertion.
- Stephen cannot assert that the existence of logic requires justification, unless he also attempts to offer a justification of God. If he believes that this is unnecessary, then he should grant point (1).
- If the assumptions for all parties are arbitrary then Russell should win this debate, since Stephen failed to meet the burden of proof that he implied when stating that atheism is impossible. If the belief in God is merely Stephen’s preferred assumption, then it is not necessary, and may be discarded due to Occam’s Razor.
- Stephen’s claim that a godless universe must be a random universe (where “random” is used to mean “inconsistent,” “illogical,” or “haphazard,” as opposed to merely “undirected”) requires justification, otherwise I reject the premise.
- Stephen should justify how a God would go about “creating” the laws of logic, without himself being subject to logic.
Sounds like Pastor Feinstein has his work cut out for him.