Analysis Of Frank Turek Vs. David Silverman Debate

The debate of the creation of the Universe, has been going on since the first humans walked the Earth. We as humans are curious creatures, and always want to know all of the answers. In the Frank Turek vs. David Silverman debate they both believe they have the more realistic view of how the Universe came to be. These types of debates can get heated quickly not only between speakers, but between the audience members, too. That is why I really appreciated what the opening speaker asked the people in the audience to do. He asked them to “lay down their weapons” and give each speaker a chance. He also said, “You don’t have to agree with an idea to entertain it," and that is exactly what you need to do while watching these kinds of debates. The first debater is Frank Turek, and …show more content…
If God doesn’t exist love is no better than rape, not objectively anyway. Blowing up innocent people watching a marathon, is morally no different from feeding the poor. If there is no standard of righteousness, then nothing can be unrighteous, everything would just be matter of opinion. That flows right into the next reason, which is evil. He made it clear that although evil is usually used as an argument against God, it is actually an argument for God. He says that objective evil presupposes objective good, and objective good requires God. He used the straight line standard which says that man cannot call a line crooked without some idea of a straight line. He used another example which states, that the shadows prove the sunshine. You can’t have shadows without sunshine, just like you can’t have evil without good, but you can have sunshine without shadows, and good without evil. The last reason was science, he declared that science can’t be done if atheism is true. He quoted Einstein saying, “The most incomprehensible thing about the World, is that it is at all comprehensible”. He went on to list 7 immaterial