Braxhunt vs. Will, round 2!

[The Black Jester]

Okay, I'm just listening to this now (I'm only at the beginning) but I have to say right off the bat...Will, you sound like exactly like my brother and I.  Not in terms of what you say - although that could also be true, I'm only a few minutes in - but in terms of the actual sound of your voice.  It's a little eerie.

[The Black Jester]

That was interesting, you both represted yourselves and your side of the debate very well.
I thought Braxhunt was a lot better than Craig from the other debate posted on this forum. He presented the Cosmological argument a lot better. I still struggle to see how it holds any weight at all given that the conclusion is exactly equal to the assumption of the argument.

I really did see his side as nothing more than "god of the gaps" which you pointed out. We are only ever seeing/hearing focus on the gaps, where one side says "see, a gap, it must have been god" and the other side says "we just don't know the answer, let's not make assumptions". I would like to see theists provide positive proof/evidence based on information affirming god rather than derrived from lack of information on how the universe works.
As far as I can tell scientists have no idea how energy can be created. To assume it requires a cause and is not eternal or is not simply a necessary outcome of space is a mistake and confusion of the ideas of cause and effect. It has never been proven that the creation of energy requires a cause, therefore it has never been proven that the energy that our Universe is made up of requires a cause.

He said that god is constant and unchanging but if god decided to create the universe then making the decision indicates change. Nothing outside of time can ever happen, no sequence, no thought, no decision, no action. There is a real confusion between concepts and reality. Making out god to be described as a concept but also being real (without being bound to the constraints of reality, e.g. temporal, spacial, substance) is an unfounded, unproven twist.

I must concur with Stevil, that you both represented quite well.  Braxhunt presented the standard Theistic arguments with more clarity than is usual, but I thought you handled his challenges well.  I am most interested in a thorough and complete reply to the Kalam Cosmological argument, something smells wrong about it but I can't quite place my finger on it (other than the obvious point that it is special pleading to deny that the universe cannot have the property of being eternal, but that there can be a being outside the universe who is, and who does not require explanation).  Actually, now that I think of it, the same argument must apply to this "supernatural" being: that is, if the natural universe requires an explanation outside itself for its existence, so must the supernatural require a yet higher level explanation outside of its existence.  A "Super-Super Natural" creator, if you will, and so on , ad infinitum.

Most of all, however, I must praise you both on your congeniality.  It is rare to have such opposing views represented as dispassionately as you both managed.  It gave me hope, in some strange way.  The arguments suddenly became so much the clearer for the lack of background noise of insult and injury.

[Will]

Okay, I'm just listening to this now (I'm only at the beginning) but I have to say right off the bat...Will, you sound like exactly like my brother and I.  Not in terms of what you say - although that could also be true, I'm only a few minutes in - but in terms of the actual sound of your voice.  It's a little eerie.

It's called "internet voice". Everybody who spends a lot of time on the internet sounds like that, even women. Scientists have yet to discover why.

[The Black Jester]

@Will: I didn't know you were actually a woman!  What a surprise! ;-p

Again, well done on the debate. What do you think about a response to Kalam that points out that such an argument does not deflect the infinite regress problem for the beginning of the supposed "supernatural" creator?