Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, was one of the most formidable opponents of Theism on the planet.
Frank Turek, co-author of the book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (one of the best books I’ve read on the existence of God) is Hitchen’s sparring partner in this debate.
It is hard for me to be objective in declaring who won the debate because Frank Turek’s ideas make so much more sense to me than Christopher Hitchens. However, I have to say that while Christopher Hitchens dodged many of Frank Turek’s very direct questions, even in his avoidance he appears to be brilliant and clever. Even when you disagree with Hitchens, you can’t help but like his sarcastic (almost apathetic) wit and pithy humor. (Personally, I think even if Hitchens was a complete idiot –which he certainly was not!– he would still SOUND smart with that phenomenal and perfectly accentuated British voice!)
In this debate, you will hear Turek trying to nail Hitchens to the wall on Intelligent Design, Morality, and other evidence for Theism. You will also hear Hitchens largely ignoring those arguments and giving compelling reasons why he doesn’t like God, the notion of God, Religion, Christians, Imposed Morality, and more.
This is a worthy debate between worthy opponents, and I hope you find it to be instructive and beneficial.
Israel Wayne is an Author and Conference Speaker, Director of Family Renewal, LLC, and Site Editor of ChristianWorldview.net.
As a non-theist and one trained by the best – The Jesuits – I am a fan of Christopher Hitchens. However, in the ‘Does God Exist’ debate with Frank Turek, Hitchens missed quite a few verbal punches. It was as if he wasn’t up to his usual standard – tired if you like. Hitchens allowed Turek to get away with pseudo scientific claims and did not – in my opinion – respond effectively. Turek claimed that (and from memory I am paraphrasing) ‘Because we all agree that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then the Universe must have been created by a non-physical entity.’ If you are of the theistic opinion that ‘nothing can come from nothing’ then where did your god come from? How does a non physical entity think, let alone construct the Universe? Theists who argue that the incredibly complex and vast Universe could not have appeared from nothing are quite happy to believe that its so-called creator – necessarily far more complex than the Universe – did in fact come from nothing. You can’t have it both ways, exept by referring to scripture, which is no proof of anything.
The ‘Goldilocks’ syndrome or ‘fine tuning’. This old chestnut is cited not just by devoted theists but – to my dismay – by scientists is so obviously flawed, I do not understnd why the likes of Hitchens does not slap it down straight away. It goes something like ‘ If the Earth had been X miles away from its current orbit; if the Moon had been X miles further or nearer: If Jupiter was not in its position in the Solar System etc etc, then we (humans, life) could not exist. Of course not. And had things panned out that way, with the ‘perfect’ combination of events not having taken place, we would not exist, and we would not be here to argue the point. This so-called logical argument comes – like so much of the Theist world view – from the premise that we humans are ‘special’ and chosen by an almighty creator. You cannot prove an argument with an unproven hypothesis.
Hitchens certainly won this debate. However, as the other contributor here said, he certainly missed a few tricks. A point of climax in the debate though, was when Hitchens noted the emptiness of arguments regarding the miracles of Jesus and his supposedly divine paternity. This wounded Turek’s entire argument. Turek also misrepresented a number of Hitchens’s arguments (e.g., his stance on abortion) and attacked straw-men in their place. Hitchens certainly lacked lustre in his corrections, but at least demonstrated the misrepresentations being forwarded. To me though, Hitchens bagged this one quite easily; I’m not sure what the confusion is all about.
the universe is a physical entity requiring a materialist and rational explanation thus cld not just hav sprung out of nnothing for this wd be contrary to rational laws and objective reality. thus by logical necessity u have to posit a supranational cause viz, superior or spiritual cause or God if u like. you can’t say who created God,because by definition he is rs eternal,ever existing,noncausal being. thats es why we read, i am that i am.And as Shakespeare wrote, nothing can come from nothing. oisnt that so inherently true and even logical?