NICOLE BARRINGTON
News Writer

Over 300 people crowded into the Neatby-Timlin Theatre on Jan. 26, filling every seat and step in the aisle to see two professors argue for and against the existence of God.

William Lane Craig, a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, provided the theist argument, while the University of Saskatchewan’s George Williamson argued the atheist position. The event was organized by Campus for Christ, with help from the Saskatoon Freethinkers, the Philosophy Club and Athletes in Action. [see correction below]

Craig was first at the podium. He used a Power Point presentation with well-constructed points and was incredibly easy to follow. With confidence and skill, Craig listed his six arguments with a seamless style that surely any atheist could respect. Craig’s argument was for Christianity and not theism in general, in response to which Williamson emphasized that theism, not Christianity, should have been the focus.

“Dr. Craig isn’t also going to prove the existence of Allah or Brahma,” said Williamson.

Nonetheless, Craig’s points were substantially supported and easy to grasp.

Williamson presented a variety of situations, proving theist claims wrong in each one. One of his arguments was that the notion of God contradicts itself. If God can only be good things, but is also all-knowing then God knows what lust, anger and sadness is. And in so knowing, he knows and is some things that are not good. 

The flow of his argument was not as streamlined as Craig’s, but at least the arguments were properly advertised as atheist, not anti-Christian. The fundamental nature of God’s existence was more defined in Williamson’s discussion, whereas Craig’s reasoning was deductive in nature.

Unfortunately, mostly due to technical troubles, Williamson did not have enough time to finish his presentation.

Neither Craig nor Williamson clearly responded to each other’s claims in their rebuttals but rather reiterated their previous claims.

Craig’s response included some odd choices of terminology, including “shmatheism” for atheism. It was a little repetitive and probably offended those in the audience who were in fact “shmatheists.” He at least addressed a few of the fundamental issues that Williamson discussed, including the definitions of omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience.

Craig’s argument that “if you agree with me that raping a little child is wrong, you agree God exists,” was met with shock.

In response, one audience member called bullshit on this claim, uttering an audible “What?”

After the two debaters cleverly answered or shot down each other’s questions, the audience filled out their ballots to vote for the winner. Shortly after that, it was time for questions from the audience — perhaps the most entertaining part of the night.

Questions directed at the two professors were a mix of intelligent, confusing and in some cases hilarious. Notably, a man in a yellow hat asked the theist “In what situation would it be okay for God to steal a loaf of bread?”
To this, Craig replied, “God cannot steal, because everything belongs to him.”

Three times as many people lined up to question the theist as the atheist. And after half an hour of that, it was time to find out who had won the debate.

Half the crowd voted for the theist, a third for the atheist argument, and 20 per cent called a stalemate.

*CORRECTION: This article originally stated that the Debate Society had helped organize the debate. The Debate society had been in talks with other organizers to moderate the debate at one point, but ultimately decided against it. According to a statement from the Debate Society: “What we saw at the ‘Does God Exist?’ debate, we felt, was an improper method for facilitating intellectual discussion on any given topic, let alone one with such potential to evoke emotional responses from people.” We regret the error.

– –
image: Pete Yee