Greg Koukl vs John Baker Debate: Do Moral Truths Exist?
In this audio Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason debates philosophy professor John Baker on the topic: Do Moral Truths Exist? This event was co-sponsored by Faith Beyond Belief and the University of Calgary Freethinkers. It took place on Saturday, October 24th, 2009. A two hour debate with Q&A. Video of the debate can be found in 12 parts here.
Full Debate MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
Brian Auten
Brian Auten is the founder emeritus of Apologetics315. He is also director of Reasonable Faith Belfast. Brian holds a Masters degree in Christian Apologetics and has interviewed over 150 Christian apologists. His background is in missions, media direction, graphic design, and administration. Brian started Apologetics315 in 2007 to be an apologetics hub to equip Christians to defend the faith.
Comments:
-
Anonymous
It wasn't a disapointing debate, I enjoyed it. I was apart of the team that brought Greg down to U of C to debate Baker, so perhaps I am biased, lol. It is true though that Baker was not thinking very straight. I found his arguments to be quite emotional spun not logically spun.
He was prepared though that is he had a linier presentation; you could follow him, if you understand his philosophy jargon. I have seen debates where the opposition was not prepared and ended up making their case adlib, or at least that is how it seemed.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is this debate was/is a good debate. 🙂
-
akubertanya
Is there any review of this debate?
-
Robert Kunda
This might be the worst debate I've ever heard. Mr. Koukl did quite well. Dr. Baker on the other hand, did not.
I'd call his presentation utterly irrational, but his arguments were utterly absent. His was a presentation entirely of assertions. It was just painful to listen to.
-
Daniel434
Does Greg really believe Jews are oppressing Palestinians or was he playing up to his audience? I seriously hope the latter…
-
mennoknight
I actually wonder if there was a miscommunication where Baker and Koukl were unclear on the actual topic of the debate…
…because if that's not the case, Baker wasn't even talking about the same subject.
Koukl was discussing whether moral truths exist.
Baker was talking about where we get moral rules, how they function, and that there's a plurality of acceptable moral rules in various societies.
They were firing in parallel directions, but that's not what debate is about.
-
Comments are closed.
Anonymous
disappointing debate, Baker is rambling and seems to have a very poor command of logical principles.