Warren-Flew Debate: Session 1 (September 20, 1976) | 50th Anniversary Remastered

Added: 2026-05-16

[00:00:01]To God be the glory.

[00:00:05]>> The most significant question facing all of mankind is that of the existence of God. Thus, the Bible chairs located on the campuses of North Texas State University and Texas Woman's University under the oversight of the University Church of Christ promoted the Warren Flu debate. Because of the importance of this question, it was necessary to invite the two most capable men available who had attained the doctorate degree in the field of philosophy to debate this issue. Dr. Thomas B. Warren of the Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee was selected to defend the existence of God.

[00:00:41]Dr. AGN Flu of the University of Reading in Reading, England, was selected to defend the atheistic position. Dr. Flu is recognized as one of the leading philosophers of the world holding to the atheistic position. We welcome you now to the first session of the Warren Flu debate. Does God exist? Dr. Flu affirms, I know that God does not exist.

[00:01:06]Since I arrived in Texas around noon on Saturday, I've been enjoying, as I'm sure all Texans here would both hope and expect, a lot of real Texan hospitality.

[00:01:18]In the intervals of watching a rodeo, attending a Unitarian church, and having because the rain stopped the proposed cookout, an indoor barbecue, there has of course been talk both about the presidential election and about this 4-day debate here in Denton. It's nothing to the present point, but I think that many of the people I've been meeting with have been a little surprised to discover that my own political and social attitudes are in many ways much more conservative than those of your eastern intellectual establishment.

[00:01:54]What is to the present point is that some people, both those inclining to Dr. Warren's side in this debate and those inclining to my opposite side have been surprised and even a little shocked to find me proposing a straight atheist resolution. I know there is no God rather than something more cautiously agnostic. I don't think the thing is proved or even can be proved either way and anyway don't expect me to stand up to be counted.

[00:02:31]seems to me that the best way for me to start this um first flu slot in the occasion is to begin to try to explain why I now take this atheist stand. And incidentally, why I think that many other people who live much as I live and believe and disbelieve pretty much what I believe and disbelieve ought similarly to describe themselves not as agnostics as they mostly do but as atheists.

[00:03:05]My father who was a Methodist minister of religion always used to argue that the word atheist was the more correct description and I now agree that on this he was right and I'm hopeful that this is the first of many points on which Dr. Warren and I will be happily seeing eye to eye.

[00:03:27]So, um, let's begin the business of trying to explain and to justify the bold atheist rather than the more respectably cautious agnostic.

[00:03:39]I want to consider four sorts of case in which people might want to say that some particular thing or some sort of thing does not exist, that there ain't no such thing. And I shall be um going through these four possible cases in order of increasing difficulty.

[00:04:02]The first and easiest case I think of as the Loch Ness monster or the abominable snowman case. In this sort of case, there's no problem or not much problem about what is in question. Some people believe or even claim to know that there are some large denisens of the deep in Loch Ness in Scotland. Or in the other case that there are some still unrecognized and unclassified creatures two-legged and of about human size but not actually human in the high Himalayas. And other people of course believe or even incautiously claim to know that uh this is all rubbish that there is no such thing as a Loch Ness monster or an abominable snowman. And in this case, there's a third group which uh will be inclined to say there's not yet enough evidence or that what evidence there is is conflicting and that the only sensible position at this time is to be agnostic about the existence of a Loch Ness monster or of abominable snowm.

[00:05:15]But in this first and simplest case, no one is saying that it's in any sense impossible that there should be such creatures. And we all know perfectly well the sort of thing that is being affirmed.

[00:05:31]Um other perhaps rather less memorable examples of this first case um uh would be something like um are there or are there still any wolves in Manitoba?

[00:05:45]Um, there's nothing unfamiliar or impossible about wolves, but there may be um ignorance or disagreement as to whether there are or are still any in Manitoba.

[00:05:58]Now, that's the first and easiest case, but I don't believe that it has any direct relevance to our present and much more difficult discussion.

[00:06:10]But I think it has to be mentioned in order to distinguish it from two other cases which are relevant. But the second of my four um is again similar to the first in not being directly relevant uh though one has to mention it in order to distinguish it later from the other two.

[00:06:32]This second case differs from the first in that it does provide an occasion to make one of those fundamental distinctions that I mentioned earlier. A distinction of which much more will surely be heard as our discussion proceeds. Now the first case as you will remember was that in which it suggested that there are creatures of such and such a kind here or there or everywhere and where though there's no problem about understanding this suggestion there is a question whether or not there are in fact such creatures.

[00:07:11]The second case is the same as the first except that now the suggestion is that it's in fact impossible that there should be uh creatures of the sort in question.

[00:07:25]Take for example the suggestion that there are centurs.

[00:07:30]Now everyone knows that the centaur is a fabulous beast. the head and shoulders being the head and shoulders of a man or a woman and the rest the rest of the body of a horse or a mare.

[00:07:46]Now, in this case, we can of course say that no one has ever met a centaur or at least no one's ever been sober when he did. But we can also say that we know perfectly well how we could recognize such creatures if they did exist. We also know that it's as a matter of fact impossible that they should. Of course, we we've got pictures of what centaurs would be like. And given the description I've given, uh we wouldn't even need pictures because we've all seen people and horses and could recognize a centaur if we met one. But now what makes this second case of mine relevant is that it provides occasion to begin to distinguish two sorts of impossibility, two senses of the word impossible.

[00:08:38]If we claim, as I think we all would, that centers are or would be impossible, the point we'd be making is that the known biological laws or what we believe to be known biological laws rule them out. That this sort of mixture of the top parts of a man or a woman and the um the body and back legs of a horse um uh just couldn't have evolved. that the two elements just couldn't be put together so that they would go on living as one.

[00:09:13]The crux here, what one means by saying that these things are impossible is that the world and the laws of nature being what they in fact are um that couldn't be centur.

[00:09:33]There's no contradiction in the description of a creature which would be half horse and half person. But things being as we think we know they are, centaurs just can't be. But now and now we begin to come onto the other sense of the word impossible. Whereas it's perfectly clear that there would be no difficulty for an omnipotent being in making centaurs.

[00:10:00]Um since um there'd be no difficulty since such a god would decide what the laws of nature are to be, he could, if he so chose, choose to have a system of nature in which centaurs were not only as a matter of fact possible, but actually existed.

[00:10:19]That is here you have a case where what is in fact impossible to men and to all other creatures uh is not by the same token impossible to God.

[00:10:30]So we've had the first two cases and the first sense of impossible. Now the uh second sort of impossibility, the second sense of the word impossible is best explained in connection with the third sort of issue of existence or non-existent.

[00:10:49]Consider such claims as there's no such thing as a round square or um perhaps a more suitable local example. You cannot have an automobile which is smaller outside than inside. Handy though that would be for um uh traffic. Now um we know that there ain't no such things and there couldn't be as round squares or automobiles which are smaller outside than inside. Not of course because we or other people have searched the world and drawn a blank, nor yet because our physicists have found that some law of nature obtains in the universe as it actually is. um uh though of course God might had he so chosen have arranged things differently. Now the reason for saying these things are impossible is that the very idea of something with um uh smaller external dimensions than its internal dimensions or of a round square is a contradiction. It's the reason why this is impossible. The nature of the impossibility is the reason why you'll never find an unmarried husband or a 90year-old teenager and so on.

[00:12:09]Um now um this is a fundamental and very important very important distinction between um uh log between what one might call logical impossibility the sort of thing where a contradiction is involved and um impossibility as a matter of fact.

[00:12:28]Um it's important for us because if someone is going to um well it's important for us because uh one sort of attack on a system of belief about um a god and his arrangements. One sort of attack um is the attack of urging that there is in fact some contradiction between the statements made within that system.

[00:13:01]Um well of course uh you it would be absurd to say that it was as a matter of fact impossible for a god to exist or if he existed to do this that or the other.

[00:13:13]Um it is not absurd to urge that some system of beliefs may have a contradiction in it and hence that to say that um there might be a god who did this and this and this would be contradictory and hence impossible.

[00:13:36]Now the third the the fourth um sorry yeah um under this third heading um one sort of argument that I'm going to offer about um a system of belief about God is that um the system that we're going to have presented to us contains that sort of contradiction. Now um if um uh this is indeed sh so it would be ridiculous for someone who thought he had shown that it was so to say that he was agnostic in this case. It would be like being agnostic about whether there are any unmarried husbands or round squares.

[00:14:20]um uh if one can make out an argument of this sort then uh one has shown that the thing is logically impossible and there's no question of being agnostic.

[00:14:34]Now um I'm not sure whether I can at this stage go on to the fourth sort of case in which one argues about um existence and non-existence. How do we stand? Um, sorry to be a little confused about this because the timeout business um, uh, has been hard for me to follow on an ordinary watch.

[00:14:59]Um, well, I think actually before going on to this fourth thing, it would be wise, especially because of the interruptions, to uh, recapitulate.

[00:15:09]Um, I've been starting by trying to show why I'm going to take a boldly atheist rather than a modestly agnostic line.

[00:15:19]And to do that, I undertook to distinguish four sorts of case in which there could be a dispute about existence. The first, if you like, the Loch Ness monster case, where the suggestion being made about the existence of something is intelligible. It's not known to be impossible. There's just a question whether as a matter of fact there really are these creatures in Loch Ness. The second case, the centaur case.

[00:15:49]Oh, thank you. The centaur case here again the suggestion is intelligible that we um have or can have scientific reason for saying that the existence of centur is impossible.

[00:16:02]uh but of course this impossibility is a matter of what is as a matter of fact impossible though of course it wouldn't be impossible for God. The third case, the round square case is this. In here the uh suggestion u may uh look intelligible but um if you uh if it really does involve a contradiction as the idea of a round square or an unmarried husband does, then it's basically incoherent.

[00:16:33]And if you can show that a system of beliefs about religion is in this way incoherent, then um uh the correct thing for you to say is that you know that whatever else is true, this system isn't true and it's not the correct thing to be agnostic but to be um positive about it.

[00:16:57]I think um I won't go on to the fourth case in this thing. I will simply say a little more about the idea of logical impossibility.

[00:17:08]There have been uh many theologians including St. Thomas Aquinas who've made um in connection with um the problem of evil and other such problems have made the point uh that nothing which involves contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.

[00:17:28]I think they would have done better to formulate the point they were after by saying that if you utter nonsense um and make God the grammatical subject of the sentence, the rest of which is nonsense or if you make the word God the grammatical subject of a sentence which is contradictory. Uh you don't show that there's a limitation in God's power because he can't you know realize in the world the contradiction. you simply show uh that you have been contradicting yourself and it's that sort of thing which is one of the sorts of things I hope to show as the evening goes on.

[00:18:16]Dr. Flu, gentlemen, moderators, ladies and gentlemen, I'm very happy to come before you to reply to the speech to which you have just listened.

[00:18:26]And I should like by way of anticipation of helping you to see what I plan to do by way of my negative response to call your attention to my chart on the overhead projector to chart number nine.

[00:18:41]Now you will look on this chart and you will see a series of rooms. I want you to envision these rooms as made out of steel and concrete with no windows or doors. There are no holes in either the floors or the windows. And Dr. Flo Flu is in the middle of them. And the only way he can come to atheism is to come through all of these walls. And I submit to you that he is in the midst of a prison and that he can come through not only not all of the walls, but that he cannot come through any of the wall.

[00:19:14]Basic to his contention that he knows that there is no God. There are certain things that he must know before he can know that this proposition is true. You will understand that he has affirmed a universal negative. Now, we'll be talking about that more in these in this uh speech and in the succeeding two months tonight and tomorrow evening, but I want to get that before you at the very beginning. The basic issue in this discussion is this. I myself am an empirical fact. I am a human being and so is each and every one of you. There are only two possible explanations.

[00:19:53]There is to go back to dead matter which Dr. Flu holds is eternal and which he cannot prove to do so but which he must prove to do so to prove his case.

[00:20:03]But even if he could grant that he cannot prove that dead matter has ever produced anything living.

[00:20:12]You are then to decide that the ultimate source of you, of all of your love, of every human being who's ever lived on this earth is rocks and dirt and if he wishes, gas and water, though he has a tremendous problem there also.

[00:20:29]But he has absolutely no proof for that.

[00:20:32]It is purely and simply a matter of assumption upon his part.

[00:20:38]On the other hand, there is the alternative of the personal living God, the supreme personal being who is the creator of the universe and yet transcendent of the universe. Let's look now at chart number four on the overhead projector. And I would like for Dr. Flu to be sure to note these uh matters and um call for the chart and they will be given on the screen. The importance of this debate This is not merely an intellectual inter enterprise. It is not merely that we have gathered here to sort of discuss things that leave them up in the air. If the atheistic view is true, then during our lives here on this earth, we are nothing but organized matter.

[00:21:24]Our alleged creator has been rocks and dirt, or dead matter to say the best.

[00:21:30]Everything we are and do is the result of dead, non-intelligent, non-purpose matter.

[00:21:36]There is no real objective right or wrong.

[00:21:40]Though Dr. Flu and his fellow atheists do not wish to admit that, but there is no real objective right or wrong given this position. The implication of it is that there is not and no one therefore has any real obligation to do anything or not to do anything.

[00:21:59]Physical death is the absolute end of each and every one of us. then our total being will go into the dust of the earth and no matter how we may have acted or what we may have done murder on the level of the Nazis rape lying stealing and so forth there will be absolutely no accounting or judgment or punishment on the other hand if the theistic view is true our creator is God there is real objective right and wrong there is real objective moral good and evil if God is if the theistic view is true, then we have real obligation to recognize it, to recognize the evidence for God and to obey God. And each and every one of us will live on as a unique center of personality after this life on earth is over. And each one of us must give an account to God for how we have lived. Now, Dr. flu is on record and I want to insist upon it myself as we look at chart number 17 on the overhead projector that the law of rationality that we should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence in fact as we look at chart 17 A number one I want to look at that first chart number 17A1 Dr. Flu has this to say in his book God and Philosophy page 11. To be irrational precisely is to refuse to consider relevant evidence although knowing it to be relevant. To accept one position while refusing to accept as plain logical consequences or while insisting also on holding something else flat inconsistent with it and so on. Now I agree with that. But I believe that Dr. flu has already demonstrated the fact that he has not and as a matter of fact cannot be consistent in the way which he alleges here in his book. I have submitted in accordance with the agreement which we had in prior to the debate a series of 10 questions. I shall note some of them in this speech and some of them later. One of the crucial things you should always look for in a debate of this kind is to see how well the disputant may handle the questions that are involved because an erroneous position cannot maintain consistency. It will cross itself and I want you to see how Dr. Flu has already been guilty of that.

[00:24:32]Let us begin with noting question number one.

[00:24:37]True or false? The value did not begin did not exist before the first human being. He answers that is true. Now that means before there was a human being on earth and he recognizes human beings came into being at a certain point in time there was absolutely no value.

[00:24:54]Therefore if value began or at least it was not before human beings value could be nothing else than a function of the human mind. It can be nothing more than one likes or dislikes his approvals or disapprovals. And that means that even the horrors of the Nazis in Germany where they took even little children and put them in box cars with quick lime so that they not only would die but would die excruciatingly is nothing more than one's approval or disapproval. But in just a moment I want to get into some matters in more detail in that. But I want you to see how he has answered this question. Number two, in murdering six million Jewish men and women ch and children, the Nazis were guilty of real objective moral wrong.

[00:25:38]Now, it has long been a contention of the atheist that we should reject theism because it entails self-contradiction.

[00:25:45]But notice in the first question, Dr. Flu has pitched morality purely on the subjective basis. That is, that is dependent solely and completely upon a function of the human mind. For there was no value before there were human beings. But now he says they were guilty of objective moral wrong. That means real moral wrong which entails an objective standard. My friends, you simply cannot fit together these first two questions. Then in number three, in torturing and or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating and I ask him to check all appropriate boxes. And the boxes which I gave him were these. The law of Germany, the law of England, the law of the United States, the law of God, some other law or no law at all. He checked the box some other law and said this international Nuremberg trials moral.

[00:26:38]Now in that connection, I want you to note these charts. First 43W.

[00:26:45]My friends, this is a fantastic thing for human beings to allow themselves to get caught in this kind of thinking.

[00:26:54]Let us note in 43W, the accused were the Nazis. Dr. Flu was a member of the British Army. I was a member of the American Air Force in World War II. Our nations accused, tried and condemned, and in some cases even uh executed the Nazis. They were accused of heinous crime. Now, here was the defense of the Nazis. As you'll notice on chart 43W, they said our society had its own needs and desires. And if I've understood Dr. Flu correctly, this is his basis for morality. When you meet your own needs and desires or when a society does, when an individual meets his own needs and desires or when a group, people in a city or a town or a state or a nation, but they said, "Our society had its own needs and desires." This is the Germans.

[00:27:43]Our society made its own laws based on those needs and desires. Our our society commanded us to exterminate the Jews. It would have been wrong for us not to have obeyed. And now you try to condemn us with the law of an alien society, a value system which had absolutely nothing to do with us. You are therefore condemning us by an exposfacto law which you force upon us. But now note there is the conscience within man that will simply not allow him to accept that kind of ungodly doctrine. That the German nation had the right to invent a law that because of their own society to seek to exterminate this nation of people not only to exterminate them but in the most agonizing way could drill roads to the east to the point that none of them could survive. Now here, Robert Jackson, chief just or one of the justice of the United States who was the prosecutor in his closing address in the Nuremberg trials had this to say. These men should be tried on this basis on a higher law, a higher law which rises above the provincial. The provincial is the area of Germany, the geographical area and the transate. That is the period of time in which the Nazis had charge of Germany. In other words, he's saying they did not have the right to simply make a law within their own nation and say this is right for us even if it's wrong for you.

[00:29:08]Now let's note if there's no higher law, if there is not one that rises above the provincial and the transit above what is involved to a certain locality during a certain period of time by which the conduct of individuals and/or societies may be correctly judged as either morally right or morally wrong. It is false to say that the Nazis actually did real wrong in murdering 6 million Jewish men, women, and children. But Dr. flu insists they did do wrong and therefore he has admitted that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the u uh transient. I want you to note further the uh chart uh 43 y no 43 A10 I'm sorry I want you to note on this chart 43 A10 we have the law of England on one side of the chart and the law of Germany on the other. Now you will see the law of England is authoritative to the law to the people of England, the individuals in that country. The law of Germany is applicable. It's authoritative to the people in Germany. But notice I have an arrow pointing toward from England to Germany. It is not authoritative. We could have put America on there as well.

[00:30:21]Our law does not have application to the people of Germany. They are not amanable to our law. Nor were they then nor now amanable to the law of England. And so it could not have been the law of England. It could not have been the law of America by which they were uh guilty and they were not tried on that basis.

[00:30:39]There was a higher law which rises above the provincial and the transient. And we'll have more to say about that. My friends, the very fact that there can be moral degeneration as there was in Germany and moral progress makes clear that the attack made by the prosecutor at Nuremberg was exactly right. That there is a higher law which transcends the provincial and of the transient.

[00:31:06]Now just for a moment let us look at Dr. Flu's attack. He has said there are various ways of considering that you know that a thing does not exist. He considers such matters as a Loch Ness monster, centaurs, and logical impossibilities such as round squares or the old question, can God, he didn't actually say this, but can God make a rock so large that he cannot lift it?

[00:31:30]And he proposes to say that God is involved in this kind of situation. In other words, that God is simply impossible to exist. Now, he said that it is an assertion, but he made no argument about it. Now, I will not, of course, go ahead and make Dr. Flu's argument for him. I'm sure that he has an argument to make to try to show you that the concept of God that the very concept of God itself is the kind of thing that he seemed to be leading up to as a round square or a rock that an omnipotent thing could make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it. I do not know that he proposes to do that for sure, but it seems to be the kind of thing that he's done in the past and I suppose that he will do it in the future. And so that is all that he's done in his speech. I have showed you the self-contradiction that is involved in the answering of his questions. And now let us note some further of his questions. Of the following statements, check the box in front of each true statement. If a statement is false, leave the box blank. A woman was on earth before any human baby. He left that blank. A human baby was on earth before any woman. He left that blank. So it is simply not the case that one was here before the other. Somehow or other they must have gotten here at exactly the same time.

[00:32:53]Now Dr. Flu, I'm certainly going to be listening for you to explain how that happens. Now further, let's notice in question six. Of the following statements, check the box in front of each correct answer. If the statement is false, leave the box blank. Number one, at least one human being now living on Earth formerly was an ape or some other non-human being and that ape was transformed into a human being. He left that blank. At least one human being who lived in the past, but who is now dead was at one time an ape or some other non-human being and that ape was transformed into that human being. He left that blank. So he's saying that there's no human being now lived or ever did live that was transformed after it once had existence as some nonhuman being and transferred into a human being. All right. Now the next question number seven. Of the following statements check the box in front of each correct answer. Number one. At least one human being now living on earth was begotten of a male ape or some other non-human male and born of a female ape or some other non-human female. He left that blank and therefore counts it false. Secondly, at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was begotten by a male ape or some other non-human male and was born of a female ape or some other non-human female. And he says that's false. So now note, no nonhuman thing was ever changed after once having existence as a nonhuman was ever changed into a human. And no two things male and female that were non-human ever in physical union had that to result in a human being. I submit to you there's no way other way of even conceiving of it. And I therefore submit to you this is why Dr. Flu would not cannot and will not answer the question which was first on earth a woman or a baby. He has therefore given up completely the theory of evolution.

[00:34:45]And since no other theories are alternatives other than creation or evolution, he has therefore admitted that creation is the one and only possibility.

[00:34:56]Now number eight, each one of us has a real objective moral obligation to become an atheist so that if he does not become such he becomes guilty of real objective moral wrong and he checks it false. Well, Dr. flu. What on earth is the purpose of our being here? If there is absolutely no obligation, if there is no reason, if you should give us the evidence that would prove that atheism is right and that we then would have no obligation, you're saying that we have absolutely no obligation to accept the truth. If we have no obligation to accept the truth, how could there be real, objective, moral, right, and wrong, which you have said is the case.

[00:35:34]Now, you see, friends, how utterly self-contradictory this doctrine is. And Dr. Flu has already said tonight as he said over and over in his books and I agree that any position which involves self-contradiction is false absolutely palpably false I do not know how a man could have admitted any more clearly than he has admitted already tonight and I say it kindly lovingly urging that he recognize the evidence as he has urged that anyone who sees the evidence and does not accept it is being irrational.

[00:36:06]I call upon him to be rational to accept the only conclusion which follows from the evidence as we shall see in the following nights when I present in the affirmative. But already by his admission, he has eliminated one of the only two possibilities and therefore admits creation which could be only God from the concept of God. Thank you sir.

[00:36:29]Uh number nine, real objective evil exists and I put here true or false. He did not answer either one. Now, Dr. Flu, I want you to answer this question. Number nine, did not check either true or false. There's no way you can answer that without contradicting one of the answers you've already given. Number 10, from the concept of God and the actual existence of subjective evil, one can soundly deduce the non-existence of God.

[00:36:59]All right. Thank you, sir.

[00:37:02]Now I do not have the time to go into a discussion of this particular point to show that it simply is not the case.

[00:37:11]But I will show you in succeeding speeches by the charts that there are no two attributes of God that contradict one another that Dr. Flu may try to do so. Now you listen carefully to see if he will try to take the concept of God and prove it without applying or referring to the empirical fact of evil to try to show that there is self-contradiction. He will not confine itself to the the concept itself. Thank you very much.

[00:37:40]The churches of Christ are not only committed to the existence of God but are also committed to the restoration of New Testament Christianity. We invite you to visit our services. Any questions or comments concerning this debate are welcome.