Last Saturday night the Biola gym was packed with 3,000 people—standing room only. Leading Christian philosopher William Lane Craig debated “New Atheist” Christopher Hitchens on the question: “Does God Exist?” While the debate time was well over 2 hours in length, the opening statements, first rebuttals, and cross-examinations are recorded below. Probably the most interesting point in the debate was when Hitchens admitted that he would be very depressed if Christianity were true (See William Lane Craig Cross Examination). While Hitchens has some intellectual problems with Christianity, his real objection is moral. Like most of the New Atheists, he simply does not like the idea of the Christian God.

WLC OPENING: (20 minutes)
•    The question of God’s existence is important for philosophy, so I will approach the question philosophically from the standpoint of reason and argumentation. We are not here to debate OT ethics, inerrancy, or the social implications of theism.
•    Two basic contentions: 1) no good arguments atheism is true; 2) there are good arguments for atheism (no good arguments have been given against God, so I will wait for Christopher to mention them)
•    1. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The question of why anything exists is the most profound question of philosophy. Atheists have said the universe is eternal and uncaused.
o    Philosophical argument: the infinite cannot exist in nature b/c it leads to absurdities. But past events are not just ideas, they are real, and so must be finite.
o    Scientific argument: we have pretty strong evidence the universe is not eternal but had an absolute beginning 13 billion years ago in the Big Bang. It represents the origin of the universe from nothing, even space and time came into being at the BB. This puts the atheist in a very peculiar position because he has to hold that everything had to come from nothing. There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being which is an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and personal immaterial being of immense power. Only two things fit this bill: (1) abstract objects—which cannot cause anything; (2) an abstract mind.
•    2. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Physical laws are exquisitely fine-tuned. They fall in an extraordinary narrow range for life to exist. Three possible explanations (1) physical necessity—but the constants are independent of the laws of nature. String theory suggests there could be 10500 universes (2) chance—but the probability is vanishingly small (3) design. What about an infinite number of undetectable universes? There is no evidence. If our universe is a random member of an infinite world ensemble, then it is overwhelmingly more likely that we would be observing a universe different than our own.
•    3. MORAL ARGUMENT: if God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. Objective values are those that are binding whether we believe in them or not. Theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. Atheists view morality as a guide to reproduction and survival. There is no good reason to think the morality that has emerged among the imperfect Homo sapiens would be objective. Rape would not be socially advantageous and so has become taboo, but it does not prove that rape is really morally wrong. The problem is that objective values exist and we do know it.
•    4. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS: Jesus was a remarkable individual. Historians have reached a consensus with an unprecedented sense of authority to stand and think in God’s place. His supreme confirmation was his resurrection. Three established facts recognized by majority of NT historians:
o    (1) The tomb was discovered empty by women.
o    (2) Groups and individuals experienced appearances of Jesus.
o    (3) The original disciples came to believe in the resurrection despite every predisposition to the contrary. The disciples were willing to die for their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
o    There is no plausible naturalistic explanation for these facts and so the Christian is amply justified in holding that Jesus rose from the dead and, thus, God exists.
•    5. THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD. For those who listen, God becomes an immediate experience in their lives.
•    Hitchens must tear down all five of my arguments and then erect a case of his own.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS OPENING (20 minutes):
•    There is an interesting dichotomy in Christian thinking between presuppositionalists and evidentialists. If we were having this debate in the 17th century then we would have known very little of astronomy, philosophy, etc.—they would have simply accepted it on faith.
•    We are not designed but have evolved by random mutation and natural selection. Many Christians now claim God used evolution as part of his design (even though evolution is not designed). But the problem is that this can’t be falsified, whereas a good theory should be falsified.
•    You are free to believe in a God who has allowed 99% of most species to live and go extinct. You have to believe that all this death, randomness, cruelty, incompetence, and extinction are part of the plan of an intelligent being. And all this happened so one imperfect being—primates—could result in us. I simply can’t believe this.
•    We all have DNA in common with other life forms tracing back to Africa.
•    Victor Stenger claims that science proves there is no God. We argue that there is no plausible evidence for a creator, including the cosmological. If there was a being that began the universe, it still wouldn’t prove that this entity cares about us, answers prayers, cares who we have sex with, cares what we eat, or cared whether we lived or died.  You cannot get from deism to theism except through extraordinary assumptions. This God must suspend the laws of nature to intervene.
•    Dr. Craig has to prove God to a certainty. I am a skeptic who doubts God. We are too early in the game to conclude that God exists. Craig’s evidence was not extraordinary enough to support such an extreme case.
•    Christianity says you are a miserable sinner but take heart because the whole world was created with you in mind.
•    We are primates who seek to understand reality. Religion gets credit because it was our first attempt at understanding the world. The pattern-seeking has gone too far. Christianity’s greatest failure is in cosmology because Christians taught we were the center of the universe.
•    Fine-tuning is a form of pattern seeking. Most physicists are very uncertain about the spatio-temporal dimensions. We hardly know what we don’t know. We are viewing it from an unimaginably. It is arrogant to claim that we understand the universe. Was there pre-existing material this being worked with or did he just will it. Who designed the designer? Nothingness is coming. Who designed that?

WLC REBUTTAL (12 minutes):
•    Hitchens agrees that there is no good argument for atheism being true. This does not prove atheism, but leaves one with agnosticism.
•    Is evolution compatible with Christianity? Biological evolution is irrelevant to the question of Christianity. My doubts about evolution are philosophical/scientific and not theological. Evolution is so mathematically remote that if it did occur, it must have been a miracle. The atheist cannot really follow the evidence because evolution must be true from a naturalistic perspective.
•    Why did God wait so long? Inefficiency does not apply to God because he has unlimited resources and power. The population of the world. 105 billion people have lived throughout history and only 2% lived before the advent of Christ. Christ came in the fulfillment of time (Galatians).
•    Hitchens says it is difficult to get from deism to theism. But this is a false use of these terms. Deism is a kind of theism. I have made a cumulative case that demonstrates that God is the best explanation of the facts.
•    Cosmological argument response: Hitchens asked if there was pre-existent material. At the singularity space and time came into existence.
•    Fine-tuning. Hitchens says scientists are uncertain about this. But his claim is not true. Temporal duration is not an argument against something being designed. He is asking why god would create God and then let it go extinct. But this is an atheistic objection. Christians say that God has not abandoned his creation.

HITCHENS REBUTTAL (12 minutes)
•    The word “atheism” is no necessary. We don’t have names such as awitcheism, asantaclauseism. I don’t need to give evidence for my view. I have seen no evidence for something beyond nature.
•    God let thousands of years go where He did not intervene at all. Such a designer is cruel and incompetent. There are still huge numbers of people who have not heard today, even though Craig mentions that most have been born since Christ. What about all the people who could never have heard? The argument that Christ’s work is retrospective is way too convenient.
•    Wright says Christianity must be true because so many people accept it. What about Islam or Mormonism?
•    The word “objectivity” is a compromised word, but I am willing to accept it. You can’t prove that anyone behaves any better if they refer to a celestial being. Hitchens challenges his audience to name one ethical statement by a believer that he couldn’t state or do. But if I challenge you to think of a wicked act, then you could easily think of all the acts done by religious communities. The OT has warrants for genocide and slavery. There is no way of deriving morality from the supernatural. The argument is not advanced by saying that I couldn’t know that God exists. We are brothers in mankind and have duties to each other. There has never been a society found where rape has not been condemned.
•    I would say that we have free will because we don’t have any choice but to have free will. I know that I’m being ironic! Christians say that you have free will because the boss insists on it. There is something suspicious to say that morality must come on high and that we don’t have the character to come up with it ourselves.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
WLC (6 minutes)
•    You redefine atheism to mean a sort of a-theism. How do you distinguish between the different forms of atheism? On your definition of a-theism really embodies a diversity of views (agnosticism, verificationism, etc.). Which of these do you hold? Hitchens: God does not exist except in some people’s minds. I don’t find the arguments convincing, but I would be very depressed if it was true.
•    Would you agree that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
•    We are looking for an objective foundation for the morals and duties we both want to affirm. It is not a matter of needing to know right and wrong. Wouldn’t you agree that on your view morals are socio-biological spinoffs from evolution? Hitchens: this is entirely possible.

HITCHENS (6 minutes):
•    Do you believe in the exorcisms of Jesus?
•    Do you believe Jesus caused demons to go into pigs and down a hill? Isn’t this sorcery? WLC: Jesus had power over forces of nature. Historically it is undeniable that he had a radical sense of miracle working.
•    Do you believe in the virgin birth? Personally I do but I couldn’t prove that historically.
•    What about the Matthew account of multiple saints “resurrecting”? WLC: I don’t know whether Matthew intends for this to be taken as apocalyptic imagery or historical.
•    Miracles don’t necessarily prove someone is the son of God. WLC agrees. Jesus did miracles in his own authority, not in someone else’s name/authority.
•    Do you regard any religions to be false? Name one: WLC: Islam. Religion is the cause of much evil. Craig agrees!