Date and Time Set for the Resurrection Debate with Nick Peters

An official date and time has now been set for my upcoming debate with Nick Peters from the Deeper Waters Christian apologetics blog. Peters and I will be debating on Monday, September 9th respectively at 7pm ET and 4pm PT.

People will be able to listen to the debate both live and afterwards in an MP3 recording. To listen live there will be a conference dial in number. Call 1 559.546.1301 at the equivalent time in your time zone and enter the code 116676#. The line can only hold 96 callers, so if a lot of people call in and you are late, you may have to wait for the MP3 to be posted (I will be posting a link here after the debate).

The debate topic will be: “Based on the historical evidence, is it more reasonable to believe or doubt Jesus’ resurrection?”

I will be affirming the position: “It is more reasonable to doubt that Jesus resurrected from the dead.” And Peters will be affirming the position: “It is more reasonable to believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead.”

The debate is being sponsored by the UCI Secular Student Alliance and the UCI Ratio Christi chapter [1]. I’m looking forward to an interesting dialogue!

-Matthew Ferguson

[1] Neither club’s sponsorship endorses a particular speaker. The clubs have both agreed to sponsor the debate in order to facilitate a dialogue, in which individual listeners, but not the organizations themselves, can favor a particular side.

This entry was posted in Announcements. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Date and Time Set for the Resurrection Debate with Nick Peters

  1. Peter N says:

    Out of curiosity, will the debate be taking place with the two of you together in front of an audience? If so, do you anticipate a receptive or a hostile crowd? Or is it going to be via Skype or some such?

    • We will actually be debating on the same conference line (everyone else, besides the moderator, will be muted). So there won’t be a “crowd” really, beyond who calls in and listens on the line. Most of the listeners will probably be people who read Peters’ blog and mine, as well as students in the UCI SSA and Ratio Christi.

      • [PeterN] If so, do you anticipate a receptive or a hostile crowd?

        Hey PeterN, I checked out your link… really kewl. Thanks for coming on board here 🙂

        My question to you is this: ever had a hostile crowd for one your performances yet? Stravinsky did.

        Stravinsky Art Riot

        Time for a historicity riot at the evangelical semanary/bible college, go for it MWF.

  2. DagoodS says:

    I suspect the 96 will fill up fast.

    I am curious how you both will address the question, “More reasonable….to whom?” Alas, I fear the answer would vary depending on whether it is a historian, a theologian, or a neutral.

    • Well, the first part of the prompt is framed in terms of “historical evidence,” so the the reasonableness of the position is supposed to be weighed in terms of historical methodology.

      I understand your concern though. It’s not always easy to phrase a debate prompt, so that it generates the best discussion. I chose to frame the issue in terms of “reasonableness,” so as to avoid the more typical and overly-simplistic debate prompt, “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” There is no possible way to give a certain yes or no answer two thousand years later. Instead, we have to go off of the inference to the best explanation. So it is better to ask the question, “Is the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?”

      I like to distinguish between the past and our theories about the past, i.e. history. I am not going to claim to know for certain that Jesus did not rise form the dead, but will defend a position of skepticism against the hypothesis that he did.

    • [DagoodS]I am curious how you both will address the question, “More reasonable….to whom?” Alas, I fear the answer would vary depending on whether it is a historian, a theologian, or a neutral.

      Excellent observation. As for being ‘more reasonable’, two out of three ain’t bad? Last night I listened to this theologian to help put me to sleep.

      Former Satanist shows everyday occultism.

      Theology: The most disarming way in claiming that the supernatural exists, without problem & proof.

  3. The debate topic will be: “Based on the historical evidence, is it more reasonable to believe or doubt Jesus’ resurrection?”
    [DagoodS] I am curious how you both will address the question, “More reasonable… to whom?” Alas, I fear the answer would vary depending on whether it is a historian, a theologian, or a neutral.
    Hmm… is this what the neutral position sounds like?
    Christianity is a way of life which utilizes supernatural concepts in order to attenuate one’s quality-of-life experience. Historical evidence has always been contrived in order to support many supernatural concepts throughout the world, although technologically we are unable to detect anything as supernatural within reality itself. Nevertheless, in order for Christianity to be reasonably believed by it’s adherent, one must accept the fact of the resurrection of Jesus as something that did actually occur (along with other dogma such as his divinity, the eventual establishment of his heavenly kingdom on Earth, as well as a particular afterlife for every individual until such occurrence).
    Understandably, the basis of any historical evidence concerning the Christian faith ends up being ancillary in regards to the main tenets.
    ====
    Merely channeling a bizarro-neutral sodium-free Cliffe Knechtle 🙂

  4. Potato says:

    Looking forward to this.

    Happen to know if (and where) a recording will be available afterwards?

Comments are closed.