You know what I would think would be a really interesting debate topic? I’d love to see two scholars come out here and debate on the existence of air. That would be downright fascinating. Just think of it, profound and articulate argumentation, cross-examination over whether air was real, all the while the two disputants breathing air in and out as they huff and puff their arguments at each other. This would be rather silly wouldn’t it? We are debating on the existence of air while breathing air as a precondition of our ability to debate. I think it would be a scholarly exercise for a person who offers erudite arguments against the existence of air to pursue that project as though air didn’t exist, when in fact contrary to his conclusions, he is using air all along. He would in that case, be a living contradiction. His argument would be possible only if his argument were wrong. He could argue against the existence of air all the while breathing air only if his argument proved to be wrong. I believe that that is something of an illustration of what is so wrong with the scholar trying to debate and show that God does not exist. He may argue this way and that way; he may enlist profound lines of erudite reasoning, but because of the validity of what is assumed and utilized in debate–the cogency of logic, language, objective knowledge and a number of other things– only make sense in the theistic worldview, the atheist debater is like the man who is continuing to breath all the while arguing that air does not exist. The existence of God is rationally necessary to rationality, science and ethics. In which case, the atheist must secretely take for granted the very thing he hopes to refute in order to engage in the debate at all. By participating in the debate, he has in principle, already lost the debate.-The Debate That Never WasBack in my lying "atheist" days I was much enamored of Martin, a "great" thinker and philosopher who had refuted the existence of God with new lines of argument that put theists to shame. His foolish tome Atheism a Philosophical Justification deserves to land upon the ash heap of philosophical history. Read it, I dare you. I own a copy. Even back in my atheist days I could see how colossally dumb so many of his "arguments" were. Theism cannot be defeated, because God does exist, and without God there would be no existence, as he is not only creator, but sustainer of every moment of existence. There would be no Michael Martin without God, because without the eternal mind there would be no minds at all.
Michael Martin Has Died
A fool comments at Jeff Lowder's post (linked above): At least he (Martin) got 83 years though.
My reply: Did he indeed get 83 years? If dead is forever dead, it matters not whether one dies at 20 or 80, because in death it is as if you had never been born. If atheism is true, there never was a Michael Martin. He never existed, as you foolishly believe he does not exist now.