Rating: 
Summary: AtheistWorld.Com Book Review
Review: I found this book good for people beginning to grow in Christian Apologetics. Atheists look elsewhere for rocksolid defenses of atheism. I would call this book biased if it weren't published by Prometheus Books (who publish many other Atheist Apologetic books).
This Book opens with an overview of the theist/atheist debate, written by Peter Kreeft. Wow, he really put the debate into perspective for me and I found his introduction the best part of the book! Moreland begins his debate by using Mathematical Proofs and then states the existence of Jesus Christ as a proof of God's existence (which I wish he would have kept out). Kai Nielson, although one of the leading atheistic defenders and a good writer, really fails to get his points across strongly. His main point, which he beats into the ground, is his inconherence argument of a creator. If this book determined the ultimate truth, we would all believe in a God. Moreland wins the debate, which is blantantly obvious. Good book read it if you get a chance!
Rating: 
Summary: Defense of Atheism was surprisingly weak
Review: I gave this bok 4 stars because the theists' case was very solid. Moreland, Craig, and Willard all did an excellent job of defending theism. What surprised me was that it was the theists and not the atheists that used science to try and prove their point. Kai Nielsen's defense of atheism rested almost etirely on the premise that the concept of God is incoherent. His arguments were repetitive and tiresome because they were all on this one point. The atheistic contributors Antony Flew and Keith Parsons did a better job of defending atheism because they actually used a little bit of scientific argumentation, but it still wasn't good. Here are three quotes by Keith Parsons in his contribution:
"Science is unavoidably naturalistic - atheistic if you prefer. Science explains in terms of scrutable, independantly testable entities that operate in accordance with knowable regularities."
"The upshot of all this is that theistic hopotheses are both contrary to the spirit and the letter of scientific practices." "Proponents of a theistic hypotheses, on the other hand, are already sure that their hypothesisis correct; they only seek evidence to buttress a foregone conclusion." So, Parsons is condemning the theists of being single minded in an attempt to prove a foregone conclusion in the mind of the theist, even though it is not the solution that science readily claims for itself. Science does test things in naturalistic terms, but that does not mean that only naturalistic conclusions can come out of it. Theists then are using the evidence to support a conclusion contrary to the conclusion that the evidence was presented for. It is the atheists that have the foregone conclusion with respect to science not the theists. The atheistic responses to the theists use of the actual infinite to define the problems of a universe that had no beginning all confuse an actual infinite with a possible infinite. So I thought that this book gave great evidence and support for theism, but the atheistic responces just weren't up to par. Since I personally haven't had nearly as much exposure to atheism as I probably should have had, I don't know if there is a lot better evidence against God than what was presented in this book. The theists won very easily.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting, but not spectacular, debate.
Review: In "Does God Exist", J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen debate the same topic, but end up talking past eachother most of the time. Unfortunately, each individual chapter within the book is much too short for anybody to establish much of a case for anything. This is probably the biggest flaw of the book- for it leads to some mediocre exchanges. Despite this limitation, however, some fairly important issues are discussed. J.P. Moreland presents a fairly strong case for the existence of God by way of the Cosmological and Teleological Argument, and Nielsen barely offers a rebuttal in return. On the other hand, Nielsen offers the Incoherency Argument, in which God is alleged to be an incoherent concept. In my opinion, this is a bad argument, but Moreland doesn't really offer much of a rebutall either. It seems as though both Moreland and Nielsen are arguing in completely different ways and, as Craig notes, there is very little "clash" as a result. The four extra participants, however, do pick up the slack a little bit. Flew and Parsons (atheist) actually offer some rebutall to Moreland's arguments, which Moreland gets to respond to later in the book (successfully, I think). Craig offers a very level-headed and fair analysis of the debate, while offering additional support for the Teleological argument. Willard's essay is nicely written, although it seems to be a bit off-topic, as he presents his own case for belief rather than analyzing what was already said by Moreland and Nielsen. Overall, "Does God Exist" is a worthwhile, but not essential, read. There are much better debate books to be found.
Rating:
Summary: Moreland Wins
Review: The high ranking is for the "contributors" (Moreland, Craig, Willard, Parsons, and Flew) for both sides of the issue. Their essays were serious and showed interests in the question "Does God Exist?" Unfortunately, though this book represents a "debate" on the existence of God between Moreland and Nielsen, it was very one-sided with Moreland emerging as the victor. I was quite surprised that Nielsen provided such a weak rebuttal to Moreland's arguments for God's existence. In fact, Nielsen even engages in some ad hominem tactics in his final essay (What more can you do after you lost?) in which he makes reference to Moreland's and Craig's age as a factor contributing to their "confusion" of using science (big bang cosmology and the anthropic principle) to augment the cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence. What does age have to do with anything? Besides, I consider this as such hypocrisy! Nielsen begins his first speech with the supposition that rational people who have both a good philosophical and scientific education should not be theists! Why make an appeal to science education on the one hand to support your view but denounce it later when you can't deal effectively with it?
Rating:
Summary: Could have been better
Review: This book is a debate between an atheist and a supernatural theist. Nielsen, the atheist, says the word God is meaningless; as a result, believers don't have the foggiest notion as to what they are talking about when they use the word 'God' or say 'God loves humanity' or 'God is a being beyond the realm of time and space.' And if believers don't know what 'God' refers to, what exactly are they having faith in? That's why Nielsen didn't employ other arguements used by atheists; if he can show that the word 'God' is meaningless from the start of the debate, why waste time on other atheistic arguements? Moreland is a supernatural theist. That is, God is a being out there who is omni this and omni that. Moreland uses standard theistic argutments, bolstered with scientific lingo. Moreland's arguements were stronger than Nielsen's--yet that doesn't mean that Moreland's God exists. It would be nice if a process theist joined the debate. Process theism offers a more plausible view of God. It solves problems that Moreland's God runs into; it solves the problem of evil, wipes away the confilct between religion and science, upholds the integrity of the world's religions, and incorporates two hundred years of biblical scholarship--all the while maintaining a high Christology. Process theism is by far the superior model of God. The 'Does God Exist' debate was boring; those who read debates like this can be misled into thinking that the choice is between atheism and supernatural theism. Not true. If you are unsatisfied with atheism, and think Moreland's Christian theism is unconvincing and a bit Neanderthal, process theism is a fine alternative. Read up on this exciting view of God, for it is superior to anything offered in 'Does God Exist'. A nice place to start is C. Robert Mesle's 'Process Theism: A Basic Introduction' and David Ray Griffin's 'ReEnchantment without Supernaturalism'. Best, Lee.
Rating:
Summary: TheContributors Win
Review: This book is a written version of the debate between J.P. Moreland and Kia Nielsen. Both men are well known in their respective fields. Moreland a Christian theist and Nielsen an Atheist, "duke it out" and try to convince us if there is or is not a God. Even though I like J.P. Moreland, and he clearly wins the debate, he isn't at his top form. Further, Nielsen is sloppy and presents an old and already disgarded argument. The strength of this book are the contributors: Lane Craig and Willard (Christians) and Flew and Parsons (Atheists) right good strong rebuttals. They all write their position with dynamic passion. I'm partial to William Lane Craig in this book, but must admit that all the contributers did a fine job and therefore, make this book a must read.
Rating:
Summary: Atheism was poorly represented
Review: This book is divided into three sections: (i) the transcriptof the oral debate on the existence of God between Christianphilosopher J.P. Moreland and atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen; (ii) commentaries on the debate by two Christian philosophers (William Lane Craig and Dallas Willard) and two atheist philosophers (Antony Flew and Keith Parsons); and (iii) concluding thoughts by Moreland and Nielsen. I agree completely with the conclusion of Craig's flow of the debate, that Moreland won the debate. In fact, Moreland's victory in the debate was so decisive I am left wishing that Keith Parsons had been Moreland's opponent; I wonder if Nielsen even took the debate seriously. In light of this, I am baffled why a secular humanist publisher like Prometheus Books would choose to pubish this particular debate, given that the atheist side was so poorly represented. For that matter, I am surprised that even Thomas Nelson originally published the book, for even theists should want the atheist position to be given its best representation. However, Nielsen's critique of theism is not representative of most atheist philosophers. Nielsen relies upon a critique of religious language in which he argues that "God" is literally meaningless. Not only do most atheist philosophers not use such an argument, they disagree with it! Unfortunately, as a result of Nielsen's "strategy" of putting all his eggs in an ineffective basket, readers are deprived of the opportunity to see an exchange between Moreland and atheist philosophers who make substantive objections to Moreland's arguments. To be sure, Antony Flew and Keith Parsons both make excellent, *representative* objections to Moreland's case, and Moreland responds to those objections in his final remarks, but we are reprived the opportunity to see how Parsons and Flew would respond to that, and so on. I therefore discourage *buying* the book. However, I encourage interested parties from both sides to borrow the book from someone who already owns it (e.g., a professor or a local library). I just wouldn't recommend spending money on the book when the atheist debater did such a poor job representing atheism. Even theistic philosophers would agree that Nielsen could have defended atheism in the debate better than he did -- much better in fact -- and that's why I discourage buying the book. And because theistic philosophers care about the truth, even they would admit that atheism wasn't represented as well as it could have been. (For example, most theistic philosophers I have read endorse J.L. Mackie's _Miracle of Theism_ as one of the best philosophical cases for atheism. They don't agree with the book, but they agree that Mackie's book is one of the best cases for atheism in the philosophical literature. And if you asked any of those theistic philosophers, they would tell you that Nielsen did not use any of Mackie's arguments. Therefore, Nielsen's arguments are not representative of the best arguments for atheism.) Moreland gave two arguments for theism: the comsological argument and the argument that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. We have responded to both of these arguments (thought not necessarily to Moreland specifically) on the Secular Web, and would welcome an exchange with Moreland should he want to answer our rebuttals.
Rating: 
Summary: Same old Situation
Review: This book is okay, nothing to get excited about. The atheist, Kai Nielsen, maintains a narrow focus, and does only fairly well with his argument. The theist side is well represented, and I didn't feel that Mr. Nielsen adequately addressed Moreland's points. The downfall of the book is in its final chapter in which Peter Kreeft advises us all on the methods we might use to determine which side won. Basically, emotionalism and Pascal's Wager are his strongest recommendations. What feels right? And, only belief will earn you "the infinite prize of eternal life." Yep, I'm not kidding. If emotionalism is to guide us, why bother with the debate?
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and entertaining
Review: This book is simply fun to read. There are arguments of all sorts about the existence of God. There are comments on the arguments from various people and comments on the comments. I certainly enjoyed it.
Moreland, as the Theist, gave several arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being (although I have to admit that he didn't include my favorite of them, the ontological one). Nielsen's argument for atheism was essentially the positivistic one: that key religious claims are unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.
But there were a couple of surprises. First, Moreland made a serious effort to rebut Nielsen's arguments, saying that God is in fact detectable and that therefore key religious statements are indeed verifiable. And second, Moreland used some scientific arguments to bolster his claim! This surprised me, given that Moreland's understanding of the Science he was using appeared to be somewhat shallow. Also, scientists play for keeps. When a scientific theory gets shot down, it's generally as dead as a doornail. I was wondering if Moreland really wanted to play for such stakes.
Some people were surprised that Nielsen used only one argument. I wasn't: it is a powerful argument and it is all he needed. Still, I was surprised by a couple of things from him. First, he dismissed the belief in existence of Zeus as plainly false and superstitious. I think such statements, while they may be valid, are subject to as much debate as the main topic. Second, I expected Nielsen to say that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was weak. He didn't do that. Instead he said that even if he were to concede that Jesus was resurrected, that would not be evidence in favor of the existence of a Supreme Being.
All in all, a well-done book.
Rating:
Summary: Same old Situation
Review: This is a debate between an atheist and a theist. This isn't the best debate in the world, but it's good for the beginner. First, Moreland used lots of arguements for God's existence. Teleological and cosmological. Others too. They were pretty standard arguements, although he did use scientific numbers and words. These numbers are misleading, but it made JP's arguements sound stronger than they really are. Nielsen wasn't swayed. He said that the word God is meaningless, and so anything JP said about God wouldn't get off the ground. If we don't know what 'God' stands for, how can we argue for it? Nielsen really believed in the cognative meaninglessness of theism. He put all his eggs into one basket. Moreland also made an appeal to religious experience. He said he had met an invisible person, who is God. Moreland said he also met another invisible person, Jesus. Nielsen didn't buy it. All we can say, Nielsen says, is that a certain state of affiars went on inside JP's brain. There is no necessary connection between thinking one is experiencing God and there acutally being a God. So Moreland's arguement falls apart. The contributors were helpful, sort of. Craig was the standard Craig and Williard wasn't much help. Nielsen even seemed angry at Williard. He said Willard wasn't familiar with his writings, and if he was--if he had taken the slightest bit of time to read Nielsen's books--Williard wouldn't have made so many errors in representing Nielsen's position. This book was okay. Personally, I can't believe people talk about this stuff today. We know better. Nielsen is talking more sense than Moreland, but perhaps a more sophisticated theist could do a demolition job on Nielsen. I don't know, though. I just don't see how anybody can talk about God today, especially the way Moreland does. Don't buy this book. Check it out at the library instead. For a better read, see the Craig-Armstrong debate.
| 
