A Chance to Be Heard

[iNow]

Inow, I would be interested in a such a debate. However, I am not sure exactly how that would work on a thread.Is there a reason we could not simply do the debate in PMs? Is there a way that we could set it up in a thread so that you and I would be the only ones able to add to the discussion, at least until we conclude the debate? I'm not sure exactly how that works.  If not I don't think it would be worthwhile as others may not respect the setup

Your desire to do this privately (whether via PM or email) implies to me that you are merely seeking converts...  trying to spread the good word and bring another sheep into your flock...  The implication is NOT that you are seeking an honest debate (perhaps I am mistaken, and if so, I do apologize).  

Seriously... If you have a meritorious position to argue, then why the extreme reluctance and trepidation to do it openly and in public view?  One would think that... if you truly have an argument worth our time and attention... that you'd want it to be visible to the largest possible audience.

Open a thread.  Invite me in.  Of course I cannot speak on behalf of other contributors here, but I'll do everything I can to remain respectful, focused, and crisp.  Further, I can promise you that if I see a logical fallacy in your argument, I will not provide you with a list, but instead with a specific indication/description of which fallacy you have used and why it is inappropriate as a foundation for your position.

[Reginus]

Buttercup claimed that there are no arguments for god's existence. I posted a link to several arguments. Now, if you if you disagree with these, or think that they're not supported by much evidence, that's fine. However the statement that there are no arguments for the existence of a god, is false.

[curiosityandthecat]

Buttercup claimed that there are no arguments for god's existence. I posted a link to several arguments. Now, if you if you disagree with these, or think that they're not supported by much evidence, that's fine. However the statement that there are no arguments for the existence of a god, is false.

A useless argument might as well be no argument.

[braxhunt]

Let me assure you, the reason that I wanted to debate in a an email or PM was only because I don't want the discussion to get convoluted with lots of other people joining in. My experience is that such a debate is unfocused. However, I am willing to try it. I don't  know how to invite someone to a post so if you would start it I would appreciate that. We would need to establish a subject for the debate. I am fine with "Does God Exist" but I will debate any subject. I don't know if your an atheist, agnostic, deist or what. Since I would probably be holding the affirmative position in any such debate I would expect that classically I would go first and in a somehwhat lengthy post lay out my arguments giving you plenty to take issue with. If this suits you then I'm ready when you are.

[curiosityandthecat]

Let me assure you, the reason that I wanted to debate in a an email or PM was only because I don't want the discussion to get convoluted with lots of other people joining in. My experience is that such a debate is unfocused. However, I am willing to try it. I don't  know how to invite someone to a post so if you would start it I would appreciate that. We would need to establish a subject for the debate. I am fine with "Does God Exist" but I will debate any subject. I don't know if your an atheist, agnostic, deist or what. Since I would probably be holding the affirmative position in any such debate I would expect that classically I would go first and in a somehwhat lengthy post lay out my arguments giving you plenty to take issue with. If this suits you then I'm ready when you are.

We're a pretty congenial bunch here, Braxhunt. Someone has already mentioned that it'd be very easy to have a thread focus on a discussion between two people and, when that debate is closed, allow another to step up. Just lay it out.

[iNow]

We would need to establish a subject for the debate. I am fine with "Does God Exist" but I will debate any subject.

Well, since you've provided me with the option to choose, here is the subject I'd like you to address:


What objective, falsifiable, repeatable evidence is there for the existence of god which could not equally be applied to argue for the existence of Zeus or Apollo, and which is consistent across observers regardless of worldview or system of beliefs?


In the interest of transparency, I tend to shy away from the "does god exist" umbrella since (while I'm incredibly confident that there is no such entity) neither one of us can prove it does or does not exist as anything more than an ambiguously defined three letter word... and all the logic in the world won't help if the debate resides on flawed premises, questionable terms & definitions, and/or unprovable assertions.  Proofs are for math, not science, so going into this we know that we would be arguing likelihood of existence, not existence itself.

My contention is that the likelihood of gods existence is so low as to be dismissable, and should be classed in the same bucket as the likelihood of the tooth fairy, purple unicorns, or centaurs existing.


My request to you is to provide some objective, falsifiable, and repeatable evidence which indicates that the existence of god is based on something more than wish thinking or popular myth.

[Whitney]

Someone has already mentioned that it'd be very easy to have a thread focus on a discussion between two people and, when that debate is closed, allow another to step up. Just lay it out.

Yes, very easy.  We could even make it so no one but the debating parties could post in the thread...which would be the easiest way to keep new people from accidentally responding, I know the regs would stay out of it if asked.  On other forums I've been on, they set up a comment thread so that those who feel the need to comment on the current debate can do so without interrupting the debate or losing their thoughts waiting for it to be over.

[braxhunt]

Inow - My argument for God would be similar to the way you would argue against God's existence based on your last post. I would argue that it is more probable that God exists than that God does not exist. I would not maintain that the existence of God could be proven. Because of this my argument would be based on evidences which are objective, but the nature of the debate would demand that we do just that with regard to the evidence. It would be falsifiable in that if the premises I lay out are shot down my view of God would be untenable. I ascribe to the God of theism. That is to say, the God whose existence I would be defending could be defined as the personal, intelligent, necessary and intentional first cause of the universe. I have found that the more wordy the title of a debate is, the more difficult it becomes to stay focused. For this reason I submit to you the option of debating the question "Which is more likely Atheism or Theism?" with theism defined as I have.

Whitney - I appreciate the idea and if Inow agrees then I would ask him to setup such a thread (or somebody tell me how, Ha ha).

[curiosityandthecat]

Ruh roh, William Lane Craig, ahoy!  

[iNow]

I would not maintain that the existence of God could be proven. Because of this my argument would be based on evidences which are objective, but the nature of the debate would demand that we do just that with regard to the evidence. It would be falsifiable in that if the premises I lay out are shot down my view of God would be untenable. I ascribe to the God of theism.

Am I correct in thinking that your argument would reside wholly on your interpretation of the evidence, and not the evidence itself?  If so, then we're a no-go.

As a helpful tip, if that is your approach, then I can tell you right now that your argument will fail as a direct result of non-sequitur logic.

For this reason I submit to you the option of debating the question "Which is more likely Atheism or Theism?" with theism defined as I have.

I don't know what the means.  You seem to have left out some words which would make your sentence coherent.
Is atheism or theism more likely to do/be what?  

Or, perhaps did you mean to refer to the distribution of those terms as labels describing humans in our the global community (like 90% of the world are theists and 10% of the world are atheists, ergo theism is more likely)... approaching this as an issue of probability and statistics...   something like that?  

Again... as a helpful tip, if that is your approach, then I can tell you right now that your argument will fail as a direct result of appeal to popularity.

[curiosityandthecat]

I don't know what the means.  You seem to have left out some words which would make your sentence coherent.
Is atheism or theism more likely to do/be what?  

Or, perhaps did you mean to refer to the distribution of those terms as labels describing humans in our the global community (like 90% of the world are theists and 10% of the world are atheists, ergo theism is more likely)... approaching this as an issue of probability and statistics...   something like that?  

Again... as a helpful tip, if that is your approach, then I can tell you right now that your argument will fail as a direct result of appeal to popularity.

Probably "Which is More Likely (To Be the Case in which Truth Resides in Regard to Existence and Cosmology): Atheism or Theism?"

[iNow]

Probably "Which is More Likely (To Be the Case in which Truth Resides in Regard to Existence and Cosmology): Atheism or Theism?"

Yes, I thought that, too, but wanted to give braxhunt a bit of a taste for what he is in for if he is not cautious with his terms.


In response to the above, I propose the following:
Which position is more rational and reasonable: Atheism or Theism?  Why?

[Whitney]

In response to the above, I propose the following:
Which position is more rational and reasonable: Atheism or Theism?  Why?

Let me know if the above is a good topic for both parties and I'll get the debate area ready.

[Heretical Rants]

Which position is more rational and reasonable: Atheism or Theism? Why?

I smell Pascal's wager coming on this one.

[karadan]

I really hope this takes off. It will make interesting reading.