Okay bpg, first flaw in Turek’s argument, first 10secs in the video. Student asks him if he thinks one can have a meaningful life if one doesn’t believe in God? Turek says yes but it would be subjective not objective meaning. Student asks what he means. Turek replies that it can only be subjective because objective meaning comes from God, ‘from his purposes’
That my friend is unverifiable, or put not so politely, a load of only pony. His whole argument has fallen at the first hurdle because it relies on him needing to demonstrate Gods existence, which he can only attempt to do through subjective thought. There really isn’t any point in carrying on with the guy after this point. And moving back and forth, gesticulating and grandstanding doesn’t strengthen his argument either.
