the timeless nature needed for the source of all existence
You only need a 'timeless nature' if you're going to presume some sort of deliberate, conscious, external agency. If you remove that preconception, the need for a timeless nature for that agency disappears. You are begging the question, here.
the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (whom he tries to pass off as a fabrication).
Verging on a straw man argument here. He does not pass of the life (and, by implication, the death) of Jesus as a fabrication, it's generally accepted that the Jesus myth is built upon the foundations of the life of a real person. The 'historical evidence' for the resurrection of Jesus is a bunch of stories from a not impartial religious group, an extended period after the purported event, making supernatural claims - that 'evidence' is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the story is true, and if it were you'd be an Muslim telling us about Mohammed's flying horse.
- the origins of our perception of truth and morality
You're welcome to go opine regarding that on the various threads here discussing it, but it's fairly clear that we don't have anything even vaguely approaching a widely accepted definitive explanation for where morality comes from or what it is. You have an opinion, obviously, but you don't have anywhere near enough justification - at least that you've shared here - to suggest that you're the arbiter of the reality of that topic.
- the true improbabilities within the fine tuning arguments
Another topic where it's been shown, here and elsewhere, that trying to be definitive about these probabilities runs into significant problems about assumptions you have to make about sample size. We know of precisely one universe, and have no basis for presuming one way or the other whether a) there might be any others, and b) whether there is any way it could have been different. As such, to suggest that there is a probabilistic judgement to be made is an overreach.
- the demonstrable reality of human free will
The fact that both the evidence and logic definitively demonstrate against the existence of free will suggests that you've not been paying attention, but then you don't really have a choice when you come at the topic with the preconceptions that you do.
- the lack of understanding of evil and the power of evil
Which is what? Imaginary second deity from your monotheism?
.... I could go on.
We've noticed...
I have no doubt that Dan Barker is sincere in his beliefs. but the current popularity of atheism has elevated his arguments to a much higher degree than they deserve.
So your evidence that his arguments are wrong, is the fact that more people are convinced by them than there used to be? It would seem that you perhaps don't understand how arguments work.
From the same debate, this was the thought provoking contribution from Professor John Lennox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=otrqzITuSqE
I'm sure you did.
Considering the current climate where atheism has become much more fashionable, I was not surprised that the vote went against the motion.
So how come atheism's popularity is 'fashionable', but Christianity's popularity is 'faith'? Bit of a double standard, perhaps?
What did surprise me was how close it was.
Unfortunately, Christianity's (and religion in general) fashionable nature has proven almost as difficult to shake off as flared trousers and mullet haircuts - every time you think you've seen the welcome departure it comes around again.
O.
