Does God Exist?

At UOIT, the campus Christian fellowship called Campus Church (CC) is hosting a debate between Prof. Di Carlo and Rev. Joe Boot. If you know about Di Carlo, or have taken his courses, you will know that he is strongly atheist and his life goal is to pretty much destroy anyone who is remotely religious/spiritual. His take on atheism is highly personal, stemming from an event which leads him to follow his logic of “This happened, therefore God cannot possibly exist.” Plenty of people use this as their argument, and it argues nothing — but this is a different topic altogether.

“Does God Exist?” Another variation of the title, of the question being asked, is “Does God exist?” A friend commented on how there should be a person who is in religious study debating against Di Carlo about the existence of God, instead of a reverend who will “probably just quote the Bible”. At the time I didn’t reply, but now I can with a more solid thought, and my response is no. The topic that is being debated is regarding the existence of the lone, tribune Almighty God, not one of the trillions of gods out there. Therefore, having a reverend who will surely use Biblical references as part of his debate is highly relevant and valid, rather than having someone who merely studies religions and may/may not even believe in God (as opposed to a god).

This CC-hosted debate is to get those who don’t believe in God, or haven’t heard of the Christian faith, to start thinking about it. It is a chance to ask questions. Hopefully, it is also a chance for them to get answers. The existence of God cannot be solely confirmed and confined in the constraints of a human mind (ie. head knowledge, acknowledgment), but also requires the heart to open to a relationship with Him — to strive after Him; to understand that the emptiness you feel can only be filled by Him. Satan believes in the existence of God, but the main difference is he is against everything God is.

Event Name: “Does God Exist?”
Date: January 22, 2009
Time: 6:30pm
Location: Gyms 3 & 4, UOIT, 2000 Simcoe St. N, Oshawa

January 30: After-thoughts

It has been a week since the debate, and perhaps I should have written my experience earlier. This was my first live debate regarding this subject, and basing on what I had heard about Prof DiCarlo from my friends who had had him as a professor before, as well as his much-deserved award for being the best lecturer in Ontario, I was expecting something fierce (not necessarily anger-driven or offensive, but slang for intense) intense. I had also not heard Joe Boot or Michael Coren in-person before, and from the initial batch of comments, I was under the impression Coren would have been incredibly biased.

A debate is exactly what a debate is about (definition available), and I don’t think debates are necessarily a great convincing “conversion tool” — it is some form of evangelism though. The purpose of these debates is to hopefully touch on some topics which are on your mind and heart, but I don’t think it will “convert” someone in the end. Can someone become a Christian through these debates? Sure, but I think somewhat unlikely — an evangelism meeting/event would probably be more effective. Can a Christian lose their faith through these debates? Definitely. Also, I don’t think there is really a winner at the end of the debates, as Coren said at the end “the winner is democracy…” and some other things I now forget because its been too long.

I felt that Boot spoke confidently, yet loudly and sometimes with anger and frustration, while DiCarlo was nonchalant, relaxed and sometimes sarcastic. Boot mentioned a few times that DiCarlo was using some of the arguments in Christianity as the basis of his argument — I don’t remember too much about this, but I think one instance could have been when DiCarlo was applying the “Christian concept of hell” to those of different beliefs. I’m not too sure where I’m trying to get to with this, but obviously I’m not in the state of mind to fully comment. If someone else at the debate has views on this, feel free to comment as you always have.

One thing that came up was young Earth creationism. I’m not too sure I agree with the idea that the Earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old, but I do believe God made the heavens, the Earth and all thats in between. I was in a Sunday school class that was taught by Matt, and I vaguely remember that it was about science and God — one topic being how old the Earth is. We are taught that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. In this class, we discussed about how long these days actually were – if we took it literally, then how do we explain some aspects of science and history? But do we need/have to? And so we had this passage:

Psalm 90:4 [show] [4]For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.
This text is from the ESV Bible. Visit www.esv.org to learn about the ESV. (New International Version)

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

But I just realized, while writing this section, that this is the basis of Young Earth Creationism. Oops… However, I remember we also asked WHAT IF C-14 dating, or the more reliable dating methods, were wrong. But seriously, this is a discussion, debate and Bible study for another day.

I learned things about DiCarlo, and his beliefs through this debate. I learned that he is not an Atheist per-se, but considers himself Ack-gnostic (if I got his terminology wrong, please feel free to correct) and is strictly (mainly?) humanist. And there is nothing wrong with that, just like there’s no problem with me having Christian beliefs (of course, there are some out there who think I have psychological, emotional and mental problems…but that’s subjective :P ). Through what people had told me, I was led to believe, and expecting, DiCarlo to be more aggressive in this debate. What I heard and saw at the debate shows once again that you cannot fully bank on the accounts of others — they might exaggerate (and this is an argument most people argue against people’s beliefs, saying things like the apostles were high on something, or were insecure cave people).

I’m not sure this fully covers how I felt the debate went, nor does it clarify my standpoint on some of the questions/issues raised through the comments…but I do hope everyone who went to the debate began to think a bit more, and if the need arises, wishes to discuss about it.

Share
This entry was written by addone, posted on January 15, 2009 at 11:15 am, filed under Life, UOIT and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • http://aaron20.com Aaron Tait

    This is a debate I wish was there to see. Di Carlo is a great speaker and I hope the other side of the camp produces someone equally as skilled.

    I personally don’t think The Bible should be used as a reference to build an argument because there are flaws present within the argument it tries to make. It appears this debate is about at least a naturally occurring “God”. As in there exists a God in nature and he/it is universal and is not an isolated experience based on an individual’s perceptions. The argument purposes that one could state: Your God, in this case the god that composes the holy trinity and that Abraham attests to, exists whether I believe in him or not.

    The issue with using The Bible as reference derives from two assumptions that a reader has to make when reading The Bible:
    1) There exists a monotheistic God
    2) The Bible is the word of this God as expressed through man’s transcription and translation

    These are not things that The Bible sets out to prove. The Bible just fills in the details.

    The Bible can not be used as source because it assumes the existence of naturally occurring phenomena that can not be proven using the study of nature (science). Unless of course you attempt to prove the existence of god using naturally occurring evidence. Even still, you must also prove that The Bible is also the word of the lord and not just because it says it is (that’s self referential).

    Alas, the existence of God and the basis of all religion is based on a concept of faith. Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe in God because you feel he exists. You are not basing your belief in him solely on external evidence. You believe in God because you have faith. The problem with this is you are treating your individual experience as being more important then that of a scientific community which has external and verifiable evidence.

    Now it looks like I went on a tangent (I have a nasty habit of doing this). All I can say is that if there were imperial, verifiable, and naturally occurring proof for the existence of God, that would be the greatest thing man has ever witnessed. I would believe in God instantly. But what if the inverse were true? What if we certainly knew that there is no God and that we can prove he doesn’t exist using the same logic and methods we use to prove that cells, bacteria, and our solar system exist. Would that not be equally as important?

    [Reply]

  • http://www.addonelam.net addone

    Somehow I get the feeling that saying “The proof is all around you in nature!” isn’t good enough, and is cliche as ever. But I wonder if saying “if there was proof of God’s existence, I would believe instantly” is just one big if-then-else statement, which may/may not demonstrate the strength and foundation of one’s faith. However, belief and faith would be different (with the act of believing not being sufficient).

    I’m actually chuckling (giggling? tittering?) at the thought of the hard-faced scientists/philosophers who are very certain of the non-existence of God and conduct experiments and research to do so, only to find that their results prove contrary to their arguments. Sure, its happened a couple of times but its always…funny.

    [Reply]

  • http://aaron20.com Aaron Tait

    What proof? Where? You say there is proof in nature but where?

    [Reply]

  • John

    Coren… Michael Freaking Coren is the mediator? Jesus, talk about bias. This man has a christian talk show on a christian network. This is extremely disappointing. You can definitely tell those hosting the debate are seeking as much back up as they can.

    I’m extremely disappointed.

    [Reply]

  • Cam

    This is a joke. Michael Coren as the moderator, really. The man has a show on CTS and regularly ambushes callers who identify themselves as Atheists on his radio program. I feel sorry for professor Di Carlo because this is showing all the signs of being an ambush.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.addonelam.net addone

    I’ve never seen any of his shows before, what does his “ambush” usually comprise of? Is it more of a constant onslaught of “You’re wrong!!!!!!” statements (or something along the lines of that), cornering the caller until they hang up?

    [Reply]

  • Ian Olson

    Just for your information, Christopher Dicarlo suggest that Michael Coren moderate the event. Michael moderated for Dicarlo when he debated Dave Hunt. Joe Boot, Christopher Dicarlo, and Michael Coren all went out for supper before the debate. These men have alot of respect for each other.

    [Reply]

  • Al van Overbeeke

    Thanks Ian for your post. As a part of the leadership team who organized this event, yes, it was diCarlo himself who suggested Michael Coren as a moderator.

    The outcome, whatever you may decide that to be, was a result of the arguments made from each side.

    I think the response to the event, and the sheer number of people who came out, is the coolest part… over 2500 hundred in total.

    [Reply]

  • lorranie.

    how did it go? (:

    [Reply]

  • RBW

    I would like to know the organizers’ evaluation of the debate and the follow-up responses. I congratulate them on their initiative and organizational skills. The large attendance is evidence of the interest, not only on campus, but in the community.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    “[Di Carlo] is strongly atheist and his life goal is to pretty much destroy anyone who is remotely religious/spiritual.”

    Factually Incorrect. He has previously stated that he is not atheistic about the possibility of a god. Also, I don’t know where your getting that ‘life goal is to destroy’ conspiracy theory from, whose live has he destroyed?

    “His take on atheism is highly personal, stemming from an event which leads him to follow his logic of “This happened, therefore God cannot possibly exist.” ”

    Factually Incorrect. Assuming that atheism is a product of trauma is intellectually bankrupt.

    “the lone, tribune Almighty God, not one of the trillions of [other] gods out there.”

    Let me guess, your God is better then all the other Gods and can kick all their combined asses? You may want to read Robert Ingersoll’s ‘The Gods’ for some perspective.

    “…and the principal business of these priests has been to boast about their god, and to insist that he could easily vanquish all the other gods put together.”

    “having a reverend who will surely use Biblical references as part of his debate is highly relevant and valid”

    I agree that content from a religious book is relevant when discussing religious matters, but the CC did themselves a disservice by bringing a young earth creationist; from my perspective, someone woefully ignorant of the current state of human affairs(what with that new fangled science and all) is ill prepared to convince me to make a life changing decision.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.addonelam.net addone

    To everyone who has commented, I’ve updated the original post with some of my after-thoughts. It’s not totally coherent, and I seem to forget significant parts of things, which is horrible. But please feel free to continue commenting and asking questions.

    Anonymous:
    - Exaggeration is one of the most inaccurate things to do, and I most likely executed it (regarding the blurb about his “life goal”) — for that I apologize not only to you and everyone else, but to DiCarlo. As stated in the after-thoughts, I learned from the debate that DiCarlo is Ack-gnostic (something like that?) instead of Atheist.

    RBW:
    - I agree, it would be nice to see a response from Al and the rest of the CC exec comment on how they felt the debate went. I’ll ask around and see if they have blogs and link it if there is. If not, we’ll have to wait and see for their comment here.

    [Reply]

  • The Wolfkin

    how extremely odd to stumble upon someone’s blog and see this post. I remember seeing these flyers all over YorkU campus. Cool post almost makes me wish I had gone but really I find such debates typically boring. Obviously some anon’s don’t really understand hyperbole. Most people you can’t have a religious debate with without them overreacting to anything that isn’t literal. OH well. good post. later bro.

    [Reply]