Theism vs. Atheism: The Internet Debate (Dr. Phil Fernandes vs. Dr. Michael Martin)

by Phil Fernandes and Dr. Phil Fernandes

Book by Fernandes, Phil; Martin, Michael This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0965648621
• ISBN13: 9780965648622
• Release Date: January 2000
• Publisher: IBD Press
• Length: 114 Pages
• Weight: 0.45 lbs.
• Dimensions: 8.5" x 5.5"

Customer Reviews

AN INTERESTING WRITTEN "GOD VS. ATHEISM" DEBATE

Michael Martin is the author of such seminal atheist and anti-Christian books as Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and The Case Against Christianity. Phil Fernandes is the author of books such as The Atheist Delusion. In the fall of 1997, they engaged in a protracted debate over the Internet about the existence of God. The debate consists of four statements by each participant (beginning with Dr. Fernandes); the second and third statements are responses to their opponents' statement; the fourth statement is a closing statement. Martin states that "Atheism in the positive sense is the view that the theistic God, an all good, all knowing, all powerful being who created the Universe, does not exist," and he also clarifies, "atheism is not materialism. ALthough some atheists are materialists, atheists are not committed to this view. For example, atheism is compatible with various forms of mind-body dualism." Fernandes argues that "God is under no obligation to have His gospel proclaimed to people whom he foreknew would reject his message." Fernandes also argues that "One cannot weigh a thought or a moral value. These immaterial entities are found in the realm of the mind. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that mind is also immaterial. If the mind is not immaterial, then our beliefs and our behavior is physically determined. If that is the case, then one wonders why Dr. Martin bothers to debate." Martin counters Fernandes's defense about the Problem of Evil by arguing, "Dr. Fernandes supposes that moral evil is not a problem so long as it brings about some greater good. However, this is a plausible reply only if we have some assurance that this greater good could not be brought about in less harmful ways." Neither side "convinced" the other, of course; but this is an interesting and more in-depth example of such a debate, that will be of interest to anyone interested in Atheism, debates about the existence of God, and theistic apologetics.