- Series: Point/Counterpoint
- Paperback: 176 pages
- Publisher: Oxford University Press; 1 edition (February 12, 2004)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0195166000
- ISBN-13: 978-0195166002
- Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 0.7 x 5.3 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 37 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #458,636 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint) 1st Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and Amazon Prime.
If you're a seller, Fulfillment by Amazon can help you increase your sales. We invite you to learn more about Fulfillment by Amazon .
"Neverworld Wake" by Marisha Pessl
Read the absorbing new psychological suspense thriller from acclaimed New York Times bestselling author Marisha Pessl. Learn more
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
About the Author
William Lane Craig is at Talbot School of Theology. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is at Dartmouth College.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) attempted to split the difference. He posited that if God exists we face an infinite gain (or loss) from our decision whether to believe. But on the other hand, if God doesn’t exist, the cost of living as though he did exist is small. Consequently, it makes mathematical sense to live as though one were a believer. This has come down to us as Pascal’s Wager.
This book consists of two public debates between William Lane Craig, a believer in the Christian God, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a confirmed atheist. The format for each debate is Point, Counterpoint, Re-point, one debate starting with the premise “God exists” and the other with the premise that God doesn’t exist. This results in a total of six excellent presentations.
These thoughtful debates should appeal to (a) anyone wanting validation of their stance, (b) anyone still on the fence, and (c) anyone who simply enjoys an exercise in critical thought. It would be a stretch to say that it’s likely to change anybody’s mind as to the existence of God, but it absolutely provides food for thought.
Craig's cosmology arguments are particularly convincing whereas Armstrong has good points in terms of the "Nature" of God. That is, a Christian God.
The problem with the "moral" argument that Craig proposes is that it is too short to truly get a grasp on. The other arguments (for both sides) were well done and well-covered. But, to no fault to Craig, the "inherent morals" argument is too short. That subject tends to be more lengthy, and needs to be covered more in-depth to legitimately understand.
The first section, is where Dr. Craig proposes his reasons for faith in God. Dr. Sinnot-Armstrong gives a rebuttle and Craig rebuttles. In the section section, Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong gives an essay for atheism, Dr. Craig rebutts, and Sinnott-Armstrong rebutts.
The only real flaws in the book are that both do not really settle anything. They write past each other often enough as to not always tackel the most revelant assertions. Further, no one deals a "death-=blow" to the other. But this is telling - since debates are not where the issues always lie. Although I like philosophy and apologetics, issues of God normally are found in the lives of others.
All in all, Graig wins because his standard to achieve victory is less. He asserts that theism is reasonable. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong could provide an adequate argument to refute the reasonableness of Dr. Graigs points. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong's standard is much more difficult to achieve although he tries to lessen the burden by asserting he is not making "proofs in the mathmatical sense." Here he is trying to discard the "universial negative" principle. Dr. Sinnot-Armstrong also makes the general "Crusades straw-man" arguement and it backfires because Dr. Craig is able to then introduce "atheists" philosophies that killed more people and that were the logical outworkings of these belief systems.