Thursday, October 6, 2011

The Butt, Scott Debate

     With the recent debate fresh in our minds, I would like to take this time to briefly discuss a few items that were not mentioned in the debate.  Let me first say that I believe Kyle Butt did an outstanding job at presenting the truth about the existence of the Biblical God.  Mr. Butt was on target with his presentations and also with the questions that he asked and really forced Mr. Scott in a corner on many issues.  It is unfortunate that Mr. Scott did not come to debate the topic given him.  Instead he decided to "sweep everything under the rug".  He in no way, shape, or form engaged Mr. Butt in the debate.  This is unfortunate.  A debate is a great and wonderful way to engage different ideas about a subject.  It enables us to understand the other side more clearly, it enables us to consider other aspects of the argument that we may have not realized, and it is a great way to determine truth.  Mr. Butt did just these things, Mr. Scott did not.  In coming into the debate he himself stated that he was only there to confuse.  THAT IS NOT WHAT LOGICAL DEBATE IS ABOUT.  Shame on you Mr. Scott.

     In the coming weeks I hope to analyze the debate more fully, once I receive the DVD and am able to listen to exactly what was said.  But at this time just a couple of issues with Mr. Scott's comments.

     The first item is about what Mr. Scott said about how religion come about.  If you recall, he ascribed the existence of religion to a by-product of evolutionary development.  He gave quit a lengthy summary of this concept.  Here is the problem.  It can only be true if evolution is true.  If evolution is not true then his argument lands on its head.  This is what is called an "unargued philosophical bias". 

     An unargued philosophical bias is simply the philosophical precommitments of the critic which have been taken for granted, rather than openly argued and supported.  Let us examine Mr. Scott for a moment.  We know that he is a atheist, one who does not believe in any type of god.  By default, his precommitment has to be that nature is all there is since he rejects the supernatural.  This is an unsupported position.  Mr. Scott simply takes this position for granted, that nature is all there is.  He has not offered any supporting evidence to give his position credit.  That is why it is called "unargued"  In order for Mr. Scott to show his position is true, he MUST present evidence or argumentation that supports the philosophy of naturalism.  Until Mr. Scott does this, his statements are completely irrational and unreasoned.

     Another item of interest is the statement about Mr. Butt's arguments for the existence of God, the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral.  Mr. Scott stated that they had been debunked long ago by the ancient Greeks.  Mr. Scott mentioned two by name, they are Socrates and Epicurus.  He stated that all one had to do was to "google" it and see that this was so.  Two problems that we can see with this.  The first is that from my research, neither men addressed the arguments specifically.  I have tried to find them and have failed.  If anyone can present what they had to say about these arguments, please send a link so I may examine them.  The second problem is in the fact that the arguments have been refined over the decades.  We all are aware of the advances in the teleological argument, the complexity of the universe, the complexity of living beings, etc...  These ancient thinkers did not have this evidence and since this is the case, what they had to say (if anything) really does not enter into the debate as presented in this day and age.

     These are just a couple of items that I found to be wanting on Mr. Scott's part.  Once I obtain the DVD, I will be able to analyze it more in depth and expound on what I have just shared but also to evaluate some other items that were mentioned. 

     In closing, I wish to reiterate to all that Mr. Butt did a great job in the debate.  May God be glorified by his statements and actions during the debate.  I pray that he will continue to debate others on this matter in the future.

No comments:

Post a Comment