Recently there has been a debate between famed atheist Christopher Hitchens and the infamous William Lane Craig . . . their primary argument was over the existence of God, and thus “proving” or “disproving” his existence, respectively. You can read a summary of the debate provided by Philosopher Doug Geivett Here.
My contention with this whole ‘debate’ is that it is certainly fine to try and ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ God’s existence. But my caveat would be that further clarification needs to be provided, that whether or not these guys could achieve the substantiation of their disparate theses is moot when talking about the God of the bible. The God of the bible has not opened Himself up or presented Himself in such a way to be “proven” — rather He has disclosed Himself as the God to be known. So from the get-go these two disputants have started in the wrong category. They certainly have arguments to prove or disprove God’s existence. But in the end, and based upon the merits of the debate I would give it to Craig, they haven’t ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’ the God of the bible at all. Instead, if we grant that Craig won the debate, he has only proven that the God of Kalam, Aristotle, Plato, et al. exists; not the God of the bible. The God of the bible cannot be fitted to the god[ness], or concept of god that Craig and Hitchens are arguing over. The God of the bible is not a singular composition of ‘pure being’; instead He is an inter-relationship of inter-penetrating persons who is one and three and triune in nature.
Our only point of contact for knowing God is knowing Christ. The classical debate, which is what Craig and Hitchens engaged, is moot relative to the object that it is supposing to consider —- the God of the Bible. Because they weren’t, by definition, debating this God’s existence. In fact God never presents Himself to us in these ‘negative’ terms; instead He simply says: “I am!”