Brian Edwards vs. WLC, Round 2 – Does God Exist?

by Raphael Lataster

A year after Edwards demolished WLC on the resurrection of Jesus, Bill came back for more. And really didn't fare any better...

Topic: Does God Exist?

WLC: Bill starts by trying to make Edwards looking like an idiot and failing, by trying to tell Edwards he's actually an agnostic (rather than an atheist), while Edwards holds to his honest atheism (as do I). Geez Bill, you're a real class act... Like it honestly matters what label you use anyway… Edward’s position is clear; he simply holds no religious/supernatural beliefs. The onus is on Bill to prove that Bill’s god/bible/religion is true. Bill also shows his narrow-minded fundamentalism. He probably can't grasp the idea that you could be a Christian atheist, a Gnostic Christian, or an agnostic atheist. In Bill's world, you can only be one thing: Fundamentalist Christian. Everything else is from Satan. 

Note: Maybe in my debate (one can only dream) with Bill I’d ask him a similar question. “So what kind of Christian are you? Are you a strong Christian; the kind that really takes the bible on board, the "god hates fags" type of Christian? Or are you a weaker form of Christian, that's more airy-fairy about what parts of the bible are acceptable to them? Strong Christian or WEAK Christian?” 

Host: The host humorously asks that if god does exist, why hasn’t he given us an update, and cleared this matter up. Indeed, we’d have no need for debates and arguments on this matter if he’d just show himself. 

WLC: Same "5 points" as always... See my other articles for his 5 points, and their refutations. They are: Origins of the universe, fine-tuning, objective morals, resurrection, and personal experience. On point 1, Bill wrongly (as always) equated scientific theories with atheistic doctrines. On point 3, Bill says it’s very hard to see how objective morals can exist without god. I agree Bill, figuring the world out is HARD. So instead of rolling up our sleeves and doing some serious research, let’s just give up, and defer all our questions to a bunch of myths created by some ignorant and barbaric desert-dwellers, thousands of years ago... 

BE: Like in the first debate (and as I would say), Edwards declares that he doesn’t need his full 5 minutes. Why? Well we atheists don’t have to make a case, we simply need to evaluate others' cases... Says he'll give the time to Bill. “Where is god today?” Says Bill’s first 4 points are speculative in history. Where is god today? Says we normally treat people who make such claims as nuts. God is in the same category as some sort of creature in outer space. We can only speculate when we have no evidence.  

On the last point, personal experience, Edwards connects Bill's 16-year old conversion to masturbation guilt :) He mentions an issue for Christians who believe in evolution and the big bang like WLC does. “It seems like an awful long time to get to his grand plan!” Why not just get on with it? It took god BILLIONS of years and evolution etc. to get to humankind? He could have got straight there! Indeed, while the worst fundies believe in the literal 7-day creation, it makes more sense from a religious standpoint. Why wait billions of years? Edwards also asks, “Why the Earth, why this one insignificant speck in the universe?” Then criticizes god for rewarding us if we are good, punishing us if we are bad (like Santa Claus). Finds the idea ludicrous. 

WLC: Just as in the first debate, Bill claims that Edwards finds nothing objectively wrong with rape, child abuse, racism, torture, discrimination etc. (ironic, as all this is Bible-sanctioned...). Then Bill makes the leap that since objective morality exists (assumed), god must exist...  

BE: “That’s a piece of emotional sophistry.” Says it is still a subjective view. We’re talking philosophy that out there somewhere, certain moral values are written in stone, which Edwards doesn’t believe. Argues that WLC's "objective values" are cultural (i.e. Jewish), and even the host jumps in and says there has never been one solid Christian moral viewpoint. The host and Edwards both ask why Bill doesn’t accept Allah... WLC says he doesn’t want to discuss and defend Allah and other gods. That’s right Bill, evade the tough questions and hope that the audience doesn’t notice… 

WLC: Puts words in Edwards’ mouth (again), saying that Edwards can’t condemn female circumcision in Muslim Africa. Edwards interjects. 

BE: Says that god seems to have gotten people confused, because there are a lot of different beliefs out there. Indeed. He did a rather lousy job.  

WLC: Claims the 10 commandments are the objective moral values he was alluding to… Edwards asks “which ones?” as the church is divided as to which bits of scriptures are literal and which aren’t. Bill says this doesn’t apply to moral values. Outrageous! The Roman Catholic version of the Bible has a different set of 10 commandments to most Christians, primarily to allow their idol worship (revered pictures and graven images of Mary, Jesus, etc). Bill outright lies. 

Edwards is justified in leading the discussion here by the way, as Bill referred him to the bible for these moral values. And as even his most ardent supporters may acknowledge, WLC is very weak in defending conservative bible-thumping Christianity, biblical inerrancy etc. Edwards asks if he should follow the entire bible, and WLC engages in the old Christian past-time of “pick and choose”, saying “well, 10 commandments yes, moral principles yes...” So basically, like most Christians, the bits you like... Bill struggles to answer questions like if you ought to honor your father and mother, if they abuse you... (I struggled with the same commandment as my parents were very abusive and very un-Christ like). 

They move on from morals, with Bill unable to prove that his objective moral values do indeed exist, or even clarify what they are exactly. 

Personal Experience

BE: Says he doesn’t believe in miracles, personal experience of god, etc. Things tend to have a rational explanation, though we may not have discovered it yet. Bill and Edwards agree that miracles are something that cannot be explained by natural laws. Says we cannot be unaffected by the beliefs of our parents/community. Like an Islamic suicide bomber. Rightly says that because lots of people believe something, it doesn’t make it true. 

Host: “Why is religion losing ground in the Western world?” Great question! 

WLC: Can’t answer without sounding like a Jesus salesman. “Because they're rejecting biblical truths”... OMG did he just say that? 

BE: Mentions the widespread Catholic church child abuse. 

WLC: Doesn’t want to defend Catholicism. Says they have been infiltrated by paganism, liberalism etc... So the rest of Christendom hasn’t been “infiltrated by paganism”? Even though most churches stem from the Roman Catholic Church? 

BE: Asks some questions of Bill. “What was god doing before he started all this off? What was he thinking? Who did he speak to? What did a typical day look like?” 

WLC: ASSUMES time and space started at the big bang. I don’t know how he can claim this... So says the question is meaningless, as god exists outside of time. Edwards rightly says that’s almost like saying god didn’t exist before creation... Edwards can only laugh at the hypocrisy of accepting an uncaused god, but not an uncaused universe. 

BE: Says it’s interesting that WLC also calls god a "he". Then asks about what god’s plan is. 

Host: Interrupts. “Why hasn’t god shown himself recently?” 

WLC: “God has chosen an ‘interior’ way to reveal himself”... So basically we don’t know if he’s right or wrong or if it’s the Muslim god etc… Again refers to hearts and minds being open. Says it’s far more effective than miracles! WTF?! Then why is the NT (and OT) full of people coming to the lord AFTER seeing miracles?! The fool can’t answer the question so he resorts to his typical BILL-SHIT. Edwards also says that the miracles in the bible were critical to people’s beliefs... 

So why no miracles today? Especially given the world is a lot less superstitious today and usually requires more evidence than “because I told you so.” Even the host says the resurrection was the big miracle that should draw people to Jesus. Bill can’t respond! Now Bill makes another silly claim: says Edwards claims that we shouldn’t believe in a god if we can’t experience him with the 5 senses. This is ridiculous, as what about the many gods Bill doesn’t accept like Zeus or Allah? Bill further says that we see the effects of god so can infer it. Note that in their first debate, Edwards already pointed out that all of Bill’s “facts” are inferred. And inferences aren’t evidence. Bill just doesn’t learn… 

Note: This is a crucial point. Bill’s inferences could just as easily apply to any god. In fact, if you study Bill’s arguments (his “5 points”), you’ll find that all but one could apply to ANY god/religion. The only point that is specific to his faith is the resurrection argument. And as Edwards pointed out in both of their debates, this is hearsay, and is not grounded in historical evidence. 

BE: Says that the leaps Bill takes in his explanations are too big. i.e. Like how Bill says that the universe had a beginning (not proven), so god did it... Edwards then says that the creator got it horribly wrong; god should have known what would happen (dreadful things that happened, evil, lack of faith in god etc). Or did he just make dreadful miscalculations? Says prayer has no point if god doesn’t interfere (i.e. with natural disasters), Bill agrees. Bill then says atheists can’t prove that god doesn’t have moral reasons for allowing suffering (this is the god that WLC still hasn’t proven to exist)... Edwards says BOTH sides can’t really say what god thinks/wants etc. Brings up a great point that a survivor of a natural disaster will thank god, ignoring the multitudes of people god didn’t save. Bill stupidly and insensitively says that those who die and go to Heaven might be celebrating... Edwards then slams the resurrection evidence as hearsay accounts from believers (just as in the first minute of their previous debate). True. 

10 second closing statement by BE: Says his heart mustn’t be open because according to Bill, if it was, he’d believe all this. Says he can’t believe when there’s no evidence for it and when it goes against his common sense. 

10 second closing statement by WLC: Encourages readers to pick up the New Testament (why not the Old Testament? – afraid they’ll see the many genocides god commands the Jews to carry out?) and read it for themselves. Silly advice really. Like Ruth Hurmence Green (who finally read the Bible on her deathbed), they might find out how ridiculous it really is. 

Summary: Edwards called Bill out on his bill-shit and really smashed Bill on the issue of morality. He noted that Bill didn’t provide any evidence for the existence of his god, and that Bill only refers to hearsay and inferences. Bill failed miserably in proving his god/bible/religion to be true, making Brian Edwards a clear winner.