Does God Exist?: The Debate between Theists & Atheists

by J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen

Book Overview

Is there a God? What is the evidence for belief in such a being? What is God like? Or, is God a figment of human inspiration? How do we know that such a being might not exist? Should belief or disbelief in God's existence make a difference in our opinions and moral choices, in the way we see ourselves and relate to those around us?These are fundamental questions, and their answers have shaped individual lives, races, and nations throughout history...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0879758236
• ISBN13: 9780879758233
• Release Date: April 1993
• Publisher: Prometheus Books
• Length: 320 Pages
• Weight: 1.02 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Interesting and entertaining

This book is simply fun to read. There are arguments of all sorts about the existence of God. There are comments on the arguments from various people and comments on the comments. I certainly enjoyed it. Moreland, as the Theist, gave several arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being (although I have to admit that he didn't include my favorite of them, the ontological one). Nielsen's argument for atheism was essentially the positivistic one: that key religious claims are unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless. But there were a couple of surprises. First, Moreland made a serious effort to rebut Nielsen's arguments, saying that God is in fact detectable and that therefore key religious statements are indeed verifiable. And second, Moreland used some scientific arguments to bolster his claim! This surprised me, given that Moreland's understanding of the Science he was using appeared to be somewhat shallow. Also, scientists play for keeps. When a scientific theory gets shot down, it's generally as dead as a doornail. I was wondering if Moreland really wanted to play for such stakes. Some people were surprised that Nielsen used only one argument. I wasn't: it is a powerful argument and it is all he needed. Still, I was surprised by a couple of things from him. First, he dismissed the belief in existence of Zeus as plainly false and superstitious. I think such statements, while they may be valid, are subject to as much debate as the main topic. Second, I expected Nielsen to say that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was weak. He didn't do that. Instead he said that even if he were to concede that Jesus was resurrected, that would not be evidence in favor of the existence of a Supreme Being. All in all, a well-done book.

Moreland Wins !

What I want to know is if Nielsen even took this debate seriously, and if he did he doesn't know anything about debating. Nielsen just repeats his statements over and over, it might have been better if his arguments were even good. If you need a good atheist debater try Dan Baker, or Charles Templeton, I expected Nielsen to do a much better job, but alas he failed miserably. They say Nielsen is one of the most prominent atheist's...I hope not. Because if he is what they say, then atheist's you better find a much better debater and critic....... fast. Because it's clear that Moreland wins the debate without a shadow of a doubt.

Good Debate, though very one-sided

This is a good debate between a well known atheist and a well known Christian theist. However, it is quite obvious who won the debate (J.P. Moreland). The book is laid out just like the debate occurred (I actually saw the only video available for this debate - owned by my Philosophy professor who helped put the debate together), in the first section. The second part consists of the papers that were presented in the classrooms of the University of Mississippi (following the debate) and further Q & A. But, the last three parts of the book consist of articles written by well known scholars responding to the actual debate. These scholars include William Lane Craig, Dallas Willard, Antony Flew, and Keith Parsons. The last part of the book consists of two articles written by Peter Kreeft (Boston College). The book is a great copy of a classic formal debate issue, and the responses by the scholars at the end of the work make this book an excellent piece to read and digest. I highly recommend this book.

Atheism was poorly represented

This book is divided into three sections: (i) the transcriptof the oral debate on the existence of God between Christianphilosopher J.P. Moreland and atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen; (ii) commentaries on the debate by two Christian philosophers (William Lane Craig and Dallas Willard) and two atheist philosophers (Antony Flew and Keith Parsons); and (iii) concluding thoughts by Moreland and Nielsen. I agree completely with the conclusion of Craig's flow of the debate, that Moreland won the debate. In fact, Moreland's victory in the debate was so decisive I am left wishing that Keith Parsons had been Moreland's opponent; I wonder if Nielsen even took the debate seriously. In light of this, I am baffled why a secular humanist publisher like Prometheus Books would choose to pubish this particular debate, given that the atheist side was so poorly represented. For that matter, I am surprised that even Thomas Nelson originally published the book, for even theists should want the atheist position to be given its best representation. However, Nielsen's critique of theism is not representative of most atheist philosophers. Nielsen relies upon a critique of religious language in which he argues that "God" is literally meaningless. Not only do most atheist philosophers not use such an argument, they disagree with it! Unfortunately, as a result of Nielsen's "strategy" of putting all his eggs in an ineffective basket, readers are deprived of the opportunity to see an exchange between Moreland and atheist philosophers who make substantive objections to Moreland's arguments. To be sure, Antony Flew and Keith Parsons both make excellent, *representative* objections to Moreland's case, and Moreland responds to those objections in his final remarks, but we are reprived the opportunity to see how Parsons and Flew would respond to that, and so on. I therefore discourage *buying* the book. However, I encourage interested parties from both sides to borrow the book from someone who already owns it (e.g., a professor or a local library). I just wouldn't recommend spending money on the book when the atheist debater did such a poor job representing atheism. Even theistic philosophers would agree that Nielsen could have defended atheism in the debate better than he did -- much better in fact -- and that's why I discourage buying the book. And because theistic philosophers care about the truth, even they would admit that atheism wasn't represented as well as it could have been. (For example, most theistic philosophers I have read endorse J.L. Mackie's _Miracle of Theism_ as one of the best philosophical cases for atheism. They don't agree with the book, but they agree that Mackie's book is one of the best cases for atheism in the philosophical literature. And if you asked any of those theistic philosophers, they would tell you that Nielsen did not use any of Mackie's arguments. Therefore, Nielsen's arguments are not representative of the best arguments for atheism.)

A must for those who likes to think about fundamental issues

This book is really a must for anyone who is open-minded and interested in religion and deep, ultimate questions. It is not only of the highest philosophical qualtiy but is also fun and thrilling to read, as one becomes fascinated by the debate. This debate uniquely features some of the most famous philosophers of religions, the Atheists Nielsen and Flew.Both have a career of active and brilliant atheism, especially Nielsen, who is the most brilliant Atheist since the death of Mackie. On the Theist side, Moreland plays the major role. Moreland uses excellent arguments, but makes a few minor mistakes. These mistakes are fortunately corrected by Craig, the most brilliant Theist philosopher. Actually the arguments that Moreland uses stem from Craig's research work (Kalam cosmological argument, teleology, resurrection of Christ...) and the Christians would have been much better represented if Craig had had the major role instead of repeating and correcting Moreland. (See Craig's book: "Reasonable faith". the books of Moreland and J. P. Geisler should also be consulted). The presentation of the Kalam argument, of the design argument and of the resurrection of Christ are compelling. On the other hand , the argument of religious experience is subjective and worthless. The contribution of Dallas Willard is disappointing, he kind of simply restates the points in a more intuitive, less formal way. On the Atheist side Nielsen is very well completed by Flew. Nielsen major's point is to show that the concept of God is meaningless and is very smart in not trying to argue afterwards that "God" does not exist, which would refute his own point about the meaningless of "God". We can see here how Nielsen is superior to other famous Atheist philosophers such as M. Martin, who in his book "Atheism: a philosophical justification" first argues that the word "God" is meaningless, and then ridiculously argues that "God" does not exist! Flew does a good job of critizing some of the attributes of God, yet not His existence. Parson is very disappointing, attacking the design argument with a myth like the theory of evolution (ignoring that it is disproved by paleontology, embryology, biochemistry, see the books of Michael Denton, Michael Behe or Philip Johnson...). He accuses the Christians of scientific ignorance, yet naively thinks that life appeared through processes of natural selection whereas such were impossible before the apparition of life. Parson also grossly fails to understand the time maths of the Kalam argument, and his misunderstanding is ridiculed by Moreland in his closing speech. (Intelligent Atheist refutes this argument, see the debate between Craig and Smith in " Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology"). There is also another and shorter part in the book which is a debate between Nielsen and Moreland on morality. Nielsen's point is that one can simply be a moral person without being religious. Moreland argues that the tiny, ephemeral Atheists cannot