While the existence of God was a point of contention Thursday night, there was no doubting student interest in the event that drew an overflowing, standing-room-only crowd to Kretschmer Auditorium. Moderated by Aquinas professor Jennifer Dawson, “The Great Debate” pitted the wit and intellect of three theology majors against that of two student representatives of the Center for Inquiry in a civil argument over the existence – or lack thereof – of God.

Speaking before hundreds of students, faculty and staff, Dawson opened the evening by expressing satisfaction that the College was hosting such an event, and calling for more such “civil discourse” in the future.

That being said, the sparks began to fly.

“There simply is no proof” that God exists, pronounced senior Dave Fletcher in his opening remarks on behalf of the Center for Inquiry. “You can’t prove a negative,” Fletcher said - a statement that he and fellow atheist Michael McPeek would return to throughout the evening. Concluding his first remarks, Fletcher said “you can’t prove there are no gremlins in this room.”

Senior Brett Thatcher responded in his opening address by saying “the belief in God is eminently reasonable…Experience shows us that the world is more than matter.”

Thatcher countered Fletcher’s scientific methods with the statement that “the Christian worldview gave birth to science…Faith and reason purify each other.”

Senior theology major John LaCross complemented that argument, stating that scientific naturalism cannot alone explain human behavior. “It is clear that the matter we are made of has no transcendent will of its own,” he said.

Though voices remained relatively steady, the debate did, perhaps inevitably, become heated at points. Responding to LaCross, Fletcher retorted, “that’s not necessarily a coherent question, really,” and suggested the young theologian’s arguments were akin to “asking at what temperature does the numeral seven melt.”

Near the debate’s midpoint, the arguments centered about the creation of the universe.

“To say that something has a beginning,” said junior Brian Dowling, “it should have a cause. And that is something that could be said to be outside of matter.”

Fletcher responded that “there is no before the beginning of time,” and accused the three theology majors of “kind of stacking the deck in your favor.”

“I’ve never seen the Civil War,” Dowling said, adding that nonetheless in relying upon historical accounts he has faith it happened. A visibly frustrated Fletcher responded in what was perhaps the event’s most heated moment.

“There is a difference in degrees of faith,” he said. “There is a difference between religious faith and generic faith, and lumping them all together is a little intellectually dishonest, I think.”

“The world,” Thatcher replied, “carries the imprint of its maker, or its creator. As in anything in science,” he said, “something cannot come from nothing.”

Approaching closing statements, the debate appeared to begin to lose intellectual steam and give in to soaring rhetoric from both sides.

At times, that rhetoric became a bit complicated, such as when Dowling asked “since reason is the sole means of truth, how do you verify the reliability of reasoning?”

“You’re using reason to question reason,” Fletcher responded pointedly. “Electrons speak for themselves. An immaterial god does not.”

In closing arguments, Dowling sharply criticized Fletcher and McPeek’s position, humorously noting that “frankly, they have offered no arguments…they have not looked under every chair for the gremlin.”

McPeek closed the formal debate for the Center for Inquiry, saying “you have given us the ‘God of the Gaps’ – a god that fills in the gaps that we don’t understand.” Underlining their argument was McPeek’s assertion that “an immaterial being cannot act within a material world without leaving a material mark.”

The debate concluded having fulfilled the prophesy made by Fletcher in his opening comments: “Neither side will win tonight,” he said. “But that’s not the point.” The point, he said, was about encouraging a dialogue.

By the looks of the crowd, and with more students lining up to ask questions than there was time for, “The Great Debate” was a great success.