Live Debate: Matt Oxley vs. Chris Bolt – Does the Triune God of the Scriptures Exist

Join us today for a live debate covering the topic:

Does the Triune God of the Scriptures Exist?

The debate will begin at 10AM and last roughly 1.5 hours.  It will be livestreamed from a Google+ hangout and you can watch it below, or directly at the YouTube page here.

 

The format will be as follows:

Moderator: Ben Woodring

Affirmative – Chris Bolt
Negative – Matt Oxley
Chris Bolt Opening 15 min
Matt Oxley Opening 15 min
Cross Ex Matt Oxley (Questioning) 7 min
Cross Ex Chris Bolt (Questioning) 7 min
Matt Oxley Rebuttal 10 min
Chris Bolt Rebuttal 10 min
Matt Oxley Closing 8 min
Chris Bolt Closing 8 min

 

  • http://www.artsydot.com Guy R Vestal

    How pretentious that Bolt has his “books” so “Proudly” displayed behind him. He has already lost the debate with his Hubris.

    • http://choosinghats.com RazorsKiss

      Are you under the impression that they aren’t books, Guy? I’m confused as to why else we would put scare quotes around the word books.

  • http://www.artsydot.com Guy R Vestal

    Oh gawd, this mans hubris is nauseating, and he is reading his entire POV from a pre-written script? It is the broad road/wide gate Pharisees like Bolt that has defiled the name of the LORD with their pride… LOL

    • Name

      Wow. Stunning, but not too shocking. Isn’t this the proverbial double standard? I thought Christians were the ones who were SOOO JUDGMENTAL…

    • Justin

      Mr. Oxley read his POV as well, Mr. Vestal. Did you miss that?

  • Steve

    Well said, Guy.

  • Jeremy

    Thanks to everyone involved for putting this together, lots of effort went into it and it was very enjoyable to listen to.

    Chris clearly has his education showing when speaking and formulating his arguments. Chris would run circles around any Christian arguing doctrine he may or may not agree with, let alone debating an entirely different world view.

    I think Matt’s points were well made, but I think some of Bolt’s points were not fully addressed.

    Basically, the argument ended with the fact that there are two separate world views and both are ultimately based on assumption, and that Matt is envoking special pleading to say his is right. This is true.

    But that isn’t the point of the argument. We could all be specks of dust in a galactic fish bowl. This could be my assumption on my worldview and it could be right, ultimately. I am sure both the Christian, or theist worldview, and the atheist worldview would have issues with it.

    The argument was supposed to be around if the God of The Bible exists, and neither side really meant to address that fully. Bolt’s argument was based on ultimate duality and ultimate singularity being the truth and nessesary way to view the world, and that Matt’s worldview was ultimately one of pluraility. This is not an arguement for the God of The Bible. It makes no difference if everything is one thing, or everything are truly seperate things, or if both are needed to formulate an existience or revelation. That is a very deep philosophical argument that is outside of both atheist and theism, though both use it in different ways. It’s a completely untestable claim because it requires an absolute understanding of “the universe”, “everything”, and “nothing”. I would argue no human can do such a thing and thus can’t make such a claim how the world truly is.

    Where Bolt fell short is that he makes an assumption that the God of The Bible is true based on the idea that it proposes the plurality and singularity of nature are both nessesary. This is an assumption that The Bible has any obvious bearing on such a claim. The Bible makes it claim outside of simply stating it’s true by acting as an account of special revelation to real people. It’s emprical as it if such revelation and events happened or did not happen, and to believe The Bible is true is to make an assumption that said empirical people, places, and events transpired and were recorded acurately. For this reason alone we cannot be certain, regardless or our worldview, if the God of The Bible exists. Plurality, singularity, or both mean nothing in this case. Every religion is the same, and you’re splitting hairs to say one way or the other.

    What Oxley should have used in this case was Occam’s razor to point out the many layers of assumption in Bolt’s argument. Bolt’s argument was basically “Because we can see many things, but they require a whole, then therefore the God of The Bible is true”. The amount of assumptions to get to the last point is easily toppled. There are numerous points that can be contested to get there, and that is the fundamental difference between scientific thinking and theistic thinking. It’s not because of evidience, it’s because of layers of assumption. A scientific worldview so much isn’t saying “show me evidience before it can be true” as rather “let’s remove as much assumption as we can”. A scientific worldview isn’t so much concerned with what can be true, but rather with removing personal bias, assumption, and heresay (accoutns in a book) from the argument about what constitutes truth and reality.