Debate Teacher Reacts: Jeff Durbin & James White vs Greg Clark and Dan Ellis

Can I answer now? Can you do that? Will you allow an answer, sir? Will you sit down and allow an answer?

My question is this. Can you do that? Yes or no? No, he cannot do that. Okay, I'm going to try.

I'm going to try to give an answer here. Miracle number two doesn't happen. Okay. Miracle number three.

Show me, show me. This is absurd. Of course it's absurd. Let me answer the question. Lighting stuff on fire.

How many of you would like to hear an answer to the question? Sit down. Sit down.

I need to stand up. This is so cringeworthy. It's more cringeworthy than a limp handshake.

Welcome back to another Debate Teacher Reacts. Thanks so much for watching. My name is Nate. And before I started

Wise Disciple, I actually taught debate in the public sector. So the goal of this particular exercise and for the entire series is to be able to sift through the arguments on both sides and see who makes the better case in a formal debate format.

Today's debate was brought to you by your suggestions. So thanks so much again for letting me know what you want me to critique.

I'm looking at Jeff Durbin and James White versus Greg Clark and Dan Ellis. Now this debate pitted

Christian versus Atheist on the topic, the triune God of Scripture exists.

As you know, that means in a formal debate structure, the Christians have the job of taking the

AF or the affirmative. And the Atheist job is to argue for the NEG or the negative. Both teams, both sides have their own particular work to develop arguments, to provide evidence, provide alternative explanations for the topic.

So let's jump into cross exam where all the magic happens, in my opinion, and let's see which team bests the other.

What is your response to Bertrand Russell and problems of philosophy? Chapter six, he says, it's been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past.

Because what was the future where the future has constantly become the past and has always been found to resemble the past so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures.

But such an argument really begs the very question issue. We have experience of past futures, but not a future futures.

And the question is, will future futures resemble past futures? This question does not to be answered by an argument, which starts from past futures alone.

We have therefore still to seek for some principle, which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past.

What is your response to Bertrand Russell, atheist and problems of philosophy? So this is a really good question.

To present the question in the way that it has been presented is a little difficult because who you're appealing to as an opponent on a debate stage, it's really not your opponent, it's the judge.

It's the other members in the audience. And you really need to be able to speak in a manner that the judge can understand, that the audience can understand.

Well, and arguably that your opponent can understand. This is really highly academic. I wonder if most of the people in the room tracked the question exactly.

However, the question is a good question. So I would have worded it differently. Really what this gets to is the problem of induction, okay?

What Bertrand Russell was proposing was that there is a missing explanation for the uniformity of nature.

In other words, we rely on the fact that the laws of physics, the laws of logic, they will be the same tomorrow as they were today and as they were yesterday.

Our scientific experiments, our hypotheses all hinge on the uniformity of nature.

But the question is, why is there a uniformity of nature? What is the explanation for this particular feature of reality?

Bertrand Russell asked this question. David Hume asked this question. And now the Christians are posing this to the other side.

Let's find out how they respond. My first response is to you. And I remind the audience that the topic of this debate was not presuppositionalism.

The topic of this debate was not for us to prove logic exists. The topic is, does the triune

God of an errant Bible exist? And you'll notice the shell game that he's playing, even though I pointed out to this as the very first point.

He's still going back to, my God is responsible for everything.

And therefore, if you even show up at this debate,

I won. Please, right? That, as Dan has pointed out, as I have pointed out, as you all laughed at Thor, you're not

Mormons. I get that. That's the point, is you reject all of that stuff. And there's all these gods out here.

So the question is not, does inductive logic work? The question is, does the triune

God exist? Okay. So what the opposing team is attempting to do is lay a framework.

They want to narrate the conversation a bit in order for the audience to adjudicate, or the judges in the audience to adjudicate.

In other words, this is what the debate is about. This is the way that the debate should be structured.

And this is how you can determine a winner and a loser. And while that is a good strategy, there's really two issues here.

Number one, is that really true? Should we look at the debate in the way that the atheist is saying? And then number two, when the atheist tried to reiterate what the question originally was, he didn't get it right.

So let's see how the Christians respond. Dr. Clark, do you have an answer? That said, I just want to remind everybody what the debate actually is supposed to be.

And so far, they've continually avoided. Dr. Clark, do you have an answer, sir? Inductive logic is imperfect.

And it does not provide 100 % certainty. So you have no answer to Bertrand Russell's problem of induction? My answer is inductive logic is not imperfect.

I didn't say inductive logic, sir. I said the problem of induction, the uniformity in nature, not merely inductive logic.

God provides no explanation whatsoever that's not already in its assumption.

And one could just as well say Godzilla did it. And if you want to explain why Godzilla didn't do it, then go right ahead.

Godzilla. That answer is self -referential and empty. Dr. Clark, our question is about your methodology, your criticisms, and your worldview and the consistency thereof.

I understand your questions want to be about a change in the debate topic. It has nothing to do with changing debate topics, sir.

It very much is. For example, Godzilla. I'll give an answer and you can show me that it's about it.

Godzilla is all powerful. You're not allowed to question his existence because he is your creator.

This is their argument. And therefore, the fact that logic exists, that inductive logic exists is proof that Godzilla exists.

So, Dr. Clark, you've now abandoned atheism and you're a Godzilla -ite? I'm saying that those are equally—

You provide now a justification with Godzilla -ism for a principle of induction? I haven't solved the problem,

Dr. Clark. I am providing equivalence between what your audience laughed at— Dr. Clark, next question.

Dr. Clark, okay. The reason why Dr. Clark hasn't provided a sufficient response is because his own side, the best thinkers of his own position,

Bertrand Russell, David Hume, as we talked about, they acknowledge that there is this particular problem.

So then the question is, like, what is your explanation coming from your position? Now, from the Christian side,

God is the one that has set the universe in an ordered way. So then therefore, because the laws of physics and logic existed yesterday, we can trust in the fact that it will exist tomorrow, because the universe is ordered because there is a

God that ordered it. For the atheist who says there is no God, there must be some explanation. What is your alternative proposal?

And there is no answer. Next question. Do you want to know my answer? I would, Dan, thank you. Okay, sure, thanks. I would just say that I have no idea.

I don't know. Bertrand Russell himself didn't know. Right. He's a hell of a lot smarter than I am. Dan, you live by faith?

No, I don't. Would you say that you have confidence in the principle of induction? Sure. So you are with faith?

Whoops. No, I am not with faith. Confide with faith. Confidence means with faith.

Well, it depends. I mean, that's a loaded term, right? Give me your definition of faith. Well, you have trust, but there are different types of trust.

There's trust with evidence, with justification. And then there's blind, ignorant trust.

You have no basis to believe that the laws of logic are uniform. You have no basis to believe that the next five seconds you won't float away to the ceiling, because you just depend on faith.

Or that God could maybe do that. I mean, if he breaks these laws of logic all the time through miracles, you're right.

I have no basis to say that. You're confusing categories. When you talk about breaking laws of logic with miracles, what we're really talking about with miracles is the uniformity of nature.

And now you're borrowing again from our worldview. So I ask again, you depend on the uniformity of nature for miracles to be odd events.

What we say is God is sovereign and he imposes uniformity upon creation. Therefore, miracles are strange with the triune

God of Scripture. We're supposed to see dead men rising and go, that's weird. In your worldview, weird things happen all the time.

They just become philosophers. There's all kinds of strange occurrences. No, they don't. Humans become philosophers. Well, you do believe... I don't... I mean, I can't...

Okay, so obviously this is an informal cross -examination, but really in a formal setting, you really should just ask questions.

The whole point is to ask leading questions to pin your interlocutor up against the figurative wall. And so you really should stick to questions in this area.

The questions that the Christian is asking are legit. If you notice, the other side has not answered the question yet.

They are trying to poke holes in their opponent's view. And that's fine as long as they provide their alternative explanation.

If you do not provide an alternative explanation from your position, you will lose points.

I mean, that's... You have to do that. That's part of your job as a debate opponent. Let me ask you a question.

What's the distinction between you and other random results of evolutionary processes? Why do you uphold human value and dignity above, say, snails, horses, dogs, and rocks?

Well, I have yet to see a horse that could reason as well as I can. So if it reasons better, it is more valuable and has more dignity?

Okay. Clearly, who is this? Jeff Durbin has a background in debate.

Or he has been thoroughly... I mean, if he didn't grow up doing this in school, I'd be very surprised. He is thoroughly trained in the art of formal debate.

This is how you control the conversation in cross -examination. This is how you control the line of questioning.

And the leading questions that he's asking are all pretty much spot on. Again, just to be very, very particular,

I would caution against making a lot of statements. But honestly, I mean, this is going really well for Jeff Durbin.

Not necessarily, no. But I think it holds more weight, right? I think you would also say that a rock isn't as important as a human being or anything else.

Because it's not the image of God, I would say. It's a rock. Yeah. Oh, a rock is... I'm sorry, say that again?

We would say a rock is not the image of God. Human beings are the image of God. So on what basis do...

Well, let me ask it this way. You say if it reasons better, it has more value. It is possible for a segment of humanity to draw a smaller circle around their group and exterminate other groups?

Not only is it possible. We see it happen way too often. Right. Is it wrong? Yeah, I believe it is.

Is it absolutely morally wrong? Tell me what you mean by absolutely morally wrong.

Is it an ought that exists outside of my own preferences and my own likes and dislikes? Is this something that's true whether I like it or not?

Well, as I've said, I believe that the laws of logic exist. We're talking about ethics. Okay.

Not laws of logic. Can I quote you? You specifically said we don't need an invisible sky fairy to tell us we are to be good to each other.

So given that Stalin and Mao were both atheists and were responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, why didn't they need a sky fairy to tell them what to do in light of what you're saying?

Is there an absolute moral standard that says Auschwitz was wrong?

That Mao was wrong. I do not know if there's an absolute moral standard that says Auschwitz was wrong.

So how can you condemn them? But you've not offered us any evidence for that claim. You've simply asserted that your

God exists. You put yourself into a difficult position if you want to say that essentially all there is is matter and molecules.

Therefore, there is no such thing as transcendent truths.

That really what it is is a byproduct of evolution, of chemical reactions firing off in the brain.

The problem is you get locked inside your own individual skull. And so once you do that, you give up trying to speak objectively to anybody else in a moral sense.

And so the difficulty here with atheists is to try to explain that. Like, well, they want to be able to speak objectively and say that's wrong over there and Hitler was wrong and all that.

But you need some kind of explanation in order to do that. The Christian says, well, there is a transcendent standard.

It comes from upstairs. It comes from the divine and it applies to everybody equally.

But what is your proposal as somebody who says there is no transcendent standard? There is no answer in this exchange at all.

And so the Christians have the advantage at this point. So another question, since off the issue of the uniformity of nature and the principle of induction, what are the laws of logic and how are they justified?

That's good. There's the law. This is a definition question. What are the laws of logic? Are they objective standards that transcend humanity?

Are they subjective to individuals? Because if they're objective to all people, well, then they transcend subjective individuals.

But that's an argument for the existence of God. You don't have to go through the different distinctions and laws and categories, but what are they in an atheistic perspective?

We argued in the opening statement that the laws of logic reflect the thinking of God. God is unchanging.

God cannot lie. Therefore, God cannot engage in logical contradiction. We have a principian, a reference point, a standard outside of ourselves for universal, abstract, unchanging laws of thought that God imposes upon creation and expects us to think about what is your justification.

I'm saying that you don't have justification for that, or at least you haven't demonstrated it. You've made an assertion, but you've not demonstrated it.

Again, it's not enough to simply point out, well, this is what you're doing.

You need to, as a debate opponent, provide your own explanation, your own alternative to the topic.

As of yet, the atheist side has not done that. The best answer has been, I don't know.

This is insufficient in a debate. Cross -examination is supposed to flesh out your explanation and the coherence of it, the evidence that supports it.

To this point, the atheists have not provided any justification. You're asserting that this is the case.

You have yet to offer any evidence for that. The question being asked of you in cross -examination right now is, what are the laws of logic from an atheistic perspective, and how are they justified?

Keep them on track. They're justified under my worldview because they comport with the reality in which I find myself.

Are they material in nature? No, I don't believe so. So, laws of logic are not material in nature.

No, numbers are not either. So, very good. But they exist. Okay, so you do believe there are immaterial aspects to reality.

There are abstract concepts with which we can think about how the world works through using those abstract concepts.

Are these abstract concepts conventional in nature? Tell me what you mean by conventional in nature.

Do we determine and stipulate as humans what these laws of logic are? Are they conventional? We determine what they are.

I don't understand your question still. This is what a great model for setting the garden path in debate.

Again, the garden path is basically a series of what appears to be innocuous questions, but they're not innocuous.

They're setup questions. They are leading questions to pin the opponent up against the wall, figuratively speaking.

And Durbin is doing this masterfully. I mean, he knows what he's doing. Laws of logic, do they exist?

Are they real? I just told you, I think they're abstract concepts. Are these abstract concepts things that humans by convention have merely stipulated, or are they things that exist?

Would they be true without human beings? There you go. I believe that they would be. Yeah, I believe that they would be here whether human beings were here or not.

So they're transcendent. I mean, if they were here and no human was around to observe them.

They transcend humanity. I mean, it's a fun thing to think about. Thank you, Dan. I appreciate that very much. So what would be your justification for appealing to immaterial abstract universals, given your materialism?

Good question. Can you ask me that again? Sure. As an atheist, I assume you're a materialist? Yes. Okay.

So you believe all that exists is matter? That's all that I've been able to have any demonstration for.

Okay. So on what basis are you holding to immaterial laws? Because you just said you believe the laws of logic are immaterial.

So where do they come from? I believe numbers are immaterial also, but I also believe that they are useful and exist. We agree.

And then where do they come from? Yeah. So where do they come from? From human thought. So they are merely conventional. Oh my gosh.

What do you mean by merely conventional? Human beings convene and stipulate what a law of logic or a law of arithmetic is.

No, I just told you that I believe the laws of logic would be around whether humans created them or thought of them or were around to recognize them or not.

If there's some kind of coherent answer in there, it's not coming out of Dan Ellis.

He's getting his clock cleaned. It is embarrassing because he's all over the place. Either the laws of logic are ontologically material or they are immaterial.

Either human beings are creating the laws of logic as some kind of chemical activity or byproduct of evolution from the brain, but if that is, it's subjective to individuals, or they are discovering a feature of reality, but then if that's the case, that is a feature that stands above and applies to everybody else equally.

As a materialist, if you believe that all that exists is matter, in order to be consistent, you must also believe that the laws of logic are also material.

Perhaps they are the electrical reactions of neurons firing the brain, but if they are, they're locked inside the skull and they therefore are not objective standards that apply to anyone else.

That is not controversial at all to say. Many atheists swallow that pill because they are materialists.

Ellis is not prepared at all for this line of questioning, and the Christians are just slaughtering him. Well, I was going to get to that.

Since God can read minds and since God can plant thoughts in my mind, I have a trinity of numbers here.

What are they? Is that supposed to be a question either? Yes, that is. I'm not Johnny Carson. That is a question.

Your all -powerful God can do this. He changed the Pharaoh's heart. Jason is spending time praying for my mind to change.

So God, he clearly believes so. Do you think God can change my mind? Yes. You change your heart.

You'd have to change your heart first. Well, you know, we think actually with our minds. That may be, but your heart, your heart, it gives you the desires.

If you don't know, if you take an artificial heart and put it in a person, they still think. I know that. Good. Good. You know where the sun goes at night, right?

Yeah. Can I, can I, can I respond to anything you're saying? Are you just going to, are you just going to, are you just going to rail on that?

That's absurd. Okay. That's an absurd question, but I do, I would like to respond are absurd.

Of course, I didn't say that. Could I, could I answer the question? I asked you a question and here's the question.

You've got miracles ready to happen, right? Ready to happen, but, but they didn't happen.

Why is it? This man is filibustering, uh, you know, and maybe there's somebody in the audience that appreciates that, but for people ready to be in a debate as this has got to be very frustrating.

Why is it that miracles never occur except when there are things that would happen? Anyway, let's go to one of God's tests.

That is a claim. And I asked the question. Okay. Can I, okay. Let's, let's address it. Let me address miracles.

First of all, miracles. That's not my question. My questions are showing me. Okay. It looks like you want another 15 minutes to talk.

You're not asking questions. So here's my question. The ball test. You're familiar with it, right?

You're an expert on the Bible. The what? The what? Tell us the story of ball. Which and, and, and there are many balls, sir.

And Ahab. There are many balls, sir. Which, which one do you have? So the story of Ahab and their test of a true

God. Yes. You're familiar with that story. Quite. Okay. And so I was just,

I was just in Israel where it happened actually. And so the, the, the ball test was that, that if you are a believer, that a fake

God would not set something on fire and a real God would. So you've read the text. Yeah, I have read the text.

And so can I answer now? Can I answer now? Can you do that? Will you allow an answer, sir?

Will you sit down and allow an answer? My question is this, can you do that? Yes or no? No, he cannot do that.

I'm going to try. I'm going to try to give an answer here. Miracle number two doesn't happen. Miracle number three.

Show me, show me, show me. This is absurd. Of course it's absurd. Let me answer the question. Lighting stuff on fire.

How many of you would like to hear an answer to the question? Sit down, sit down.

I need to stand up. This is so cringeworthy. It's more cringeworthy than a limp handshake.

This is the worst. I mean, I don't know who let this guy in the room. Seriously. Does Dr.

Clark have any idea what a debate is or what manners are? I mean, if he doesn't, who let him get up on that stage?

Really? Someone must have left the back door open. I don't even know what, like, what is he trying to suggest with this line of questioning?

Is he trying to suggest that if God doesn't perform a miracle on the spot, then therefore God doesn't exist? I mean, if that's what he's trying to suggest, he needs to get to the point here and ask that kind of a question.

If you need to see me to hear the answer, let me give you the answer. I was just in Israel at the point where this happened.

If you've read the text, these were covenant people, and they were going after another God, a

God who had already said that they would be punished if they did this thing. And they are the ones who then.

Yes, it was. If you can ignore the context of that particular passage. Can I do what?

Call fire down out of heaven? Not in this context. No, sir. OK, can you do any? May I ask you another question?

Did you hear my answer? There are times when God uses miracles, and there are times when

God does not to specifically establish his word in scripture.

That time has passed. Now we have the church, sir, and we have the fact that God changes hearts as he has many people in this room.

Oh, isn't that sweet? Isn't that sweet? Wow. What could possibly go wrong here?

They also don't grow hair. So the question is, can you grow hair on Dr. White right now?

This is like the Christian and atheist walking into a busy restaurant. They look around and there's food on everyone's table.

And the Christian says, look at all the food on the table. There must be a chef back in the kitchen making all the food.

The atheist says, not so fast. If there was a chef in the kitchen, why doesn't he bring to this particular table some more

French fries right now? If he doesn't bring out more French fries to this particular table right now, he doesn't exist.

That's dumb. You can't treat divine agency like a regular law of physics. Maybe the chef doesn't think it's necessary to do what the atheist demands of him.

So if the French fries don't come out on the spot, that doesn't prove anything. And this is what Dr. Clark just does not understand at all.

When God revealed himself to you in your heart or mind, what was the totality of that message?

Was it simply, I exist? Or, hi, this is God. I just wanted to let you know

I love you and I'm here for you. That's an interesting question.

If Ellis is setting up his opponents, I wonder where that's going to go.

Is it going to go to the area of denominational difference, of biblical interpretation differences, in order to then make the assertion that because there are differences in interpretation or denominations, therefore, you know,

God doesn't exist or something. I don't know. But, I mean, this is, I've not quite seen this line of questioning before in a debate.

So let's see where it leads. Thank you very much. I think it goes to what you asked the audience too. And I appreciated that moment where you asked our atheist friends in the audience, you know, are you an atheist?

And they raise their hands in Salt Lake. They're like, yes. Like, you know, I'm scared. We love you.

So I know, just, you know, the context of where we're at today. The question, please. So it's interesting. Our claim, when we say that atheists know

God, is not that they are going, I'm only pretending. I really know God exists.

And I'm just going to suppress this and hold it down. What we're saying is that it is a knowledge that is inescapable. And the problem is self -deception.

And that goes to your question. We asked, what does God reveal to a person when he opens their eyes and heart to see the truth?

He reveals that he's holy. But that's not really my question. He reveals that we're sinful. You said that it's written on everybody's hearts and mind initially.

We all have this knowledge. So what is that knowledge specifically? That God is, that he's the one and only true

God. And the scriptural answer is that we are to glorify him and give thanks to him.

That's the, it's not, it's not the Trinity and all the rest of that stuff that is in the natural realm.

It is that he exists and we are his creature. That's, that's his. So let's be clear.

This vague speak is not addressing the issue. God revealed, revealed to people.

Is that a question, Dr. Clark? This is your question time. You know, the, the

Christians really did their homework. They did their research. They really tackled this issue by laying a framework suggesting that the triune

God of scripture does exist because he is the best explanation for the features of reality that we see. I don't know what the atheists were doing here.

I don't even think Greg Clark was having the same conversation that the Christians were having. Is there anything else that Greg Clark could do at this point to further embarrass himself?

You've seen the oracles. Show me, show me, show me. What you got, dude? What you got? You are the most angry man

I've ever met. Show us the evidence. I absolutely would love to see some evidence.

What you got, bro? What you got? Can you show me anything? Anything? Show me, can you show me anything?

All I would ask you to do at this moment is to exhibit some respect and dignity.

Wow, this was something. And by something, I mean it was a dumpster fire. The Christians came prepared.

They did their homework. They laid a framework. They pressed their interlocutors in cross -examination.

The atheists were not up to the challenge at all. They did not answer the questions. They tried to poke holes in the arguments from the other side but failed at that as well.

This was really embarrassing. Probably not the best example of a debate but nevertheless,

I've already reacted to it so we can only go upwards from here, right? If you want to tell me of a debate that you would like to see me react to, definitely let me know in the comments below.

If you want this series to continue, you gotta hit that like button. That tells me that we are doing something that benefits you.

And if you disagree with me and you think that the atheists actually won, you can throw that in the comments too but I need to hear why you think that is the case.