You can listen for yourself here: http://www.uwacu.org/talks/2008/080805-Debate.mp3
My thoughts:
- I thought it was ironic how Michael's first point was that people only believe in religions because they have it on authority from someone else, whereas atheist, agnostics and other "independent thinkers" think about things for themselves. However my impression at the end of the debate was that Tim was encouraging people to check it all out for themselves (reading the gospels etc.) and since Michael did nothing of the sort it was like he was implicity expecting people to take him as our authority.
- Tim used some bold words regarding Mohammed. To me these were actually refreshing after listening to our politicians using so many words to say so little. Some would consider this intolerant, but I think Voltaire was right when he said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
- Also a lot of Michael's arguments (e.g. the problem of pain, the presence of evil) seemed to indicate that he hadn't even heard the Christian responses to them (e.g. the fall). He only seemed to consider the possibility that God created the world the way we see it now. To actually make a point he would have had to demolish some of the longstanding Christian responses. Unfortunately without this the debate isn't as effective as it serves to polarise the crowd - both sides seeing his point as convincing for their side of the argument.
