A Chance to Be Heard

[Will]

If no one else throws their hat in the ring, I'll gladly be a back-up. I'll give other people a few days to volunteer, though.

[Sophus]

Normally, I love to indulge in debates. But I fear I've already wasted too much precious time in this all-too short life  disputing theists on this subject.

[Brizz]

Hi, I am a Christian apologist and was attracted to this forum because I like (and applaud you for) the idea of being positive about your worldview rather than angry. I am looking for individuals who would be willing to have a friendly and respectful Email debate regarding the existence/nonexistence of God, Divinity/historicity of Jesus Christ or some other subject.

It would, after completion, be posted on my website unchanged. Anyone is welcome to respond.

Who do you love, thank, and respect more: God or Jesus?

[Heretical Rants]

Who do you love, thank, and respect more: God or Jesus?

If I were one of the trinity-folks, I'd have to say both, because they are one and the same.

Otherwise, God, since he created Jesus.

[curiosityandthecat]

Hey braxhunt, could you link to your website that it'd be posted on? You may get some more interest if we could see where our hard-fought battle would be recorded.  

[braxhunt]

Sure, I would be happy to. Braxtonhunter.com

[Whitney]

A lot of people don't understand how an email can be connected to a real-life identity - and they don't understand that giving out your email and admitting your atheism could jeopardize your job and safety in many situations.  I can understand why people wouldn't think of this, it's crazy that people would hurt or fire a person for being an atheist so no reasonable person would think of that unless they'd heard of it.

Yup...I have friends here in Dallas who have lost their jobs or been threatened with the loss of their jobs just for being associated with free-thought orgs. events.  It's really hard to be yourself when you have to think about how what you say or do might affect your ability to keep/acquire work.  This is something I am having to think about a lot since Camp Quest Texas (about a week away) will be on the news and I will be there. Conversations related to existing news coverage have already outed me on Facebook (quite a few my friends and past school mates...I'm set to private for those not on my list) if they bother reading things I comment on.

Edit:  I'm too busy helping to prepare for the above mentioned event to participate in a formal debate or lengthy discussion.

[buttercupbaby]

Without using any bible quotes, give me one argument for the existence of god.   I think we all know that you will not have one.

[Reginus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_God

[Heretical Rants]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_God

If you actually read that article, you would know that it actually says very little.

We want evidence, not feelings. This means no post hoc and no "I once was lost, but now I'm found."

After that, you really just have the watchmaker argument, which is basically a blind shot-in-the-dark hypothesis that doesn't even support any specific God, just the deist god.

Ancient scriptures and self-fulfilling prophesies also do not count, nor do vague passages that could be interpreted to mean anything.

Example:
And [I swear] by the night when it draws in, and by the dawn when it breathes in. (Qur'an, 81:17-18)

This supposedly describes the process of photosynthesis.

* The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
    * The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
    * The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulate this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[17]
    * The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.
    * The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
    * Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
    * The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
    * The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
    * The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
    * The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
    * The Argument from Reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing itâ€"or anything else not the direct result of a physical causeâ€"and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.
    * Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory holds that the universe is bound to ultimately end in a Big Crunch, which will create a gravitational singularity that can be exploited to obtain practically infinite computational capacity; Tipler equates this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity to God.

As you can see, this amounts to "feelings" plus the watchmaker argument.

After this the article has the majority argument, the "miraculous Quran" argument, nutters who say they've seen god, and Pascal's wager.

Can these things really be considered evidence?

[buttercupbaby]

I guess I should have asked for "good" arguments.

[McQ]

I guess I should have asked for "good" arguments.

Even better, just ask for any evidence.

[Whitney]

I guess I should have asked for "good" arguments.

Even better, just ask for any evidence.

But little Betty Sue Jane from Louisiana feels GOD in her heart.  If you would only open up to the LORD you would share in this great gift which is evidence of HIS awesome power!!!!  

[iNow]

Hi, I am a Christian apologist and was attracted to this forum because I like (and applaud you for) the idea of being positive about your worldview rather than angry. I am looking for individuals who would be willing to have a friendly and respectful Email debate regarding the existence/nonexistence of God,

As others have noted, email is a no-go.  I'm also not going to share with you my social security number, nor my mothers maiden name.

Open a thread with such a debate as the central topic.
Post the link here.

I'd be glad to engage you on the topic if you're willing to avoid logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods.  
So... whatdya say?   You game?    

[braxhunt]

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, although I'm willing to try.  If there is a way, the only thing I would ask is that either 1.) we agree to use no profanity (not that I expect you would) or 2.) if profanity is used I would be permitted to omit it when I post the debate on my site. As far as logical fallacies are concerned, I make every effort to avoid them, but everytime I come across a listing of fallacies it is longer than the last. For this reason it will be difficult to promise you that I will not use arguments that you may view as being fallacious.