Osama S Qatrani
New member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2025
- Messages
- 5
- Gender
- Letmein78
My Recent Research on the 1989 WMUZ Debate
Dear ,
I recently completed a research paper analyzing the 1989 WMUZ Detroit debate between John P. Koster (Christian apologist) and Frank R. Zindler (atheist). In this study, I not only reviewed the arguments but also commented on the specific questions posed during the exchange.
Although I am a believer in God — and one might expect me to align with John Koster — I deliberately maintained neutrality in my analysis. To me, it was clear that Frank Zindler appeared stronger in this debate. The reason is simple: Koster relied on the Bible as evidence, but this was a weak strategy against an opponent who neither believes in God nor accepts scripture as authoritative. From the start, this deprived him of common ground.
What Koster could have done, instead, was to appeal to shared foundations: science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence. Even without going too deep into technical details, a non-specialist can still use scientific reasoning to highlight explanatory strength. That would have provided a more solid ground for dialogue.
My full paper is available here:
From Rhetoric to Explanatory Power: A 2025 Re-Assessment of the Koster–Zindler 1989 Debate
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Id=68d1e829220a341aa14e5e57&showFulltext=true
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18232.20486
I would greatly value your thoughts and feedback.
With respect,
Osama S. Qatrani
Dear ,
I recently completed a research paper analyzing the 1989 WMUZ Detroit debate between John P. Koster (Christian apologist) and Frank R. Zindler (atheist). In this study, I not only reviewed the arguments but also commented on the specific questions posed during the exchange.
Although I am a believer in God — and one might expect me to align with John Koster — I deliberately maintained neutrality in my analysis. To me, it was clear that Frank Zindler appeared stronger in this debate. The reason is simple: Koster relied on the Bible as evidence, but this was a weak strategy against an opponent who neither believes in God nor accepts scripture as authoritative. From the start, this deprived him of common ground.
What Koster could have done, instead, was to appeal to shared foundations: science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence. Even without going too deep into technical details, a non-specialist can still use scientific reasoning to highlight explanatory strength. That would have provided a more solid ground for dialogue.
My full paper is available here:
From Rhetoric to Explanatory Power: A 2025 Re-Assessment of the Koster–Zindler 1989 Debate
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Id=68d1e829220a341aa14e5e57&showFulltext=true
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18232.20486
I would greatly value your thoughts and feedback.
With respect,
Osama S. Qatrani