The hackenslash Challenge

[Will]

If I just read more books in the past instead of wasting hours and hours on unreal tournament 2004....

GODLIKE!!

[iSok]

If I just read more books in the past instead of wasting hours and hours on unreal tournament 2004....

GODLIKE!!

I prefer wicked sick or headhunter more.

[pilchardo]

I was hoping that someone would accept Hackenslash's challenge. Are there not many theists here?

[Tank]

I was hoping that someone would accept Hackenslash's challenge. Are there not many theists here?

There are a few but the board as a whole is quite quiet, which is one of its charms actually. Hack frequents more active boards in general so it may take a while for somebody to take up his challenge.

[Whitney]

I was hoping that someone would accept Hackenslash's challenge. Are there not many theists here?

There are a few but the board as a whole is quite quiet, which is one of its charms actually. Hack frequents more active boards in general so it may take a while for somebody to take up his challenge.

Since his challenge is for a new argument and he has listed every argument in the book as on the no list, I don't think the challenge will ever be accepted because I really don't think there are any other ways to argue for a god (aside from actually having evidence of one, which would defeat the need for such a debate).

[hackenslash]

I still think it possible to erect a reasonable argument for the existence of a deity. I have no intention of actually saying what that might be, of course, but I'll be interested to see if anyone can come up with one.

Of course, arguments are not evidence, so it's highly unlikely that I'd actually be convinced by any such argument. It's an interesting exercise, though, to see if anybody can think of a cogent argument.

[pilchardo]

I still think it possible to erect a reasonable argument for the existence of a deity. I have no intention of actually saying what that might be, of course, but I'll be interested to see if anyone can come up with one.

Of course, arguments are not evidence, so it's highly unlikely that I'd actually be convinced by any such argument. It's an interesting exercise, though, to see if anybody can think of a cogent argument.

What's the objective, do you want to be convinced or do you want to refute arguments?

[hackenslash]

False dichotomy. I just want to know if anybody has any good arguments.

[pilchardo]

False dichotomy. I just want to know if anybody has any good arguments.

I see.

[Whitney]

I still think it possible to erect a reasonable argument for the existence of a deity. I have no intention of actually saying what that might be, of course, but I'll be interested to see if anyone can come up with one.

Of course, arguments are not evidence, so it's highly unlikely that I'd actually be convinced by any such argument. It's an interesting exercise, though, to see if anybody can think of a cogent argument.

If there actually were a solid logical argument for god I think it could convince me...but only of the deist type of god and I don't see how that would affect my life for better or worse.

[hackenslash]

I think if there were a solid logical argument, I'd think that belief was less silly, but I'd still require more than a logical argument to be convinced myself. In my opinion, logic alone isn't up to the task. Logic can get you from premises to conclusion, but the problem always lies in the fact that premises can be falsified. This is why I have little truck with a certain class of navel-gazer. Philosophy is a brilliant tool for teaching one how to think. As soon as you allow it to tell you what to think, you're doing it wrong.

[Whitney]

but the problem always lies in the fact that premises can be falsified.

Right, but if the premise is wrong then it's not a solid argument...but I understand your point.

You can come up with all sorts of nonsense beliefs if you put in the wrong premises

[Whitney]

topic split:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732

[Achronos]

Here it is, folks. I issue here the ultimate challenge.

Bring your best argument for your deity, and we will, after minor discussion, make it the topic of a formal debate.

I will list some arguments that are already dealt with, and that I am happy to kick into touch in this thread. Any such arguments will indicate that you aren't ready for the challenge. I am only interested in interesting and challenging arguments, and the following do not constitute such:

1. The Kalam fallacy
2. The teleological fallacy
3. The Ontological fallacy

I will pretty much entertain any other arguments. I am happy to discuss why the above are not acceptable subjects for a formal debate, but they will not be taken to debate unless a really interesting or robust reason is given why these topics should be debated.

Debate rules:

1. 7 day time limit for response (This to allow for any instance in which rigorous research is required, such as addressing specifics of a given deity such as hackenslash (or opponent) is not familiar with, and to research citations of robust sources, and also to deal with contraints of RL for both parties).
2. ALL assertions must be supported by peer-reviewed citations
3. No quote-mining or misrepresentation of peer-reviewed citations
4. Attack the argument as strongly as you wish, but not the arguer
4. All other forum debate rules apply

Anybody wish to take my challenge?

I'll casually respond, since I don't have an interest in the debate itself. If this isn't ok, please delete my post.

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam (Alot of my support comes from St. John of Damascus, hence the name). I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

But I'm also partial to existential arguments, such as the one put forth by Pascal, stating that human existence makes no sense unless there is a God.

To counteract what I think, I'll quote one of the saints:
"The so-called logical evidence for the existence of God is: the cosmological, theological, psychological, historical, ethical proofs, and many more, which, through the passing of time have been formulated into philosophical rationalism. They cannot, in the Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, have a value of real evidence because they are based on the principles of the relative, limited, sinful minds and senses of humanity. To the Church and the Revelation, the truth about the existence of God is an illogical and irrational hypothesis, which has the need of proof with the basis of logical reasoning, the truth which God has revealed to us, and is therefore the unquestionable, true evidence. As a divine and given reality, this truth is not dependent on proof and arguments from rational functions of the mind." - St. Justin Popovich

[hackenslash]

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

Never said they were. They're all crap arguments though, and rooted in ignorance and illogic.

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam (Alot of my support comes from St. John of Damascus, hence the name). I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

Love to hear it. If it isn't a good deal more sound than the Kalam, though, it isn't any good, simply because the Kalam is one of the most wretched bits of horseshit I've ever come across. You can't even get past P1 without running into problems. P2 is a rectally extracted blind assertion, and the whole thing commits the fallacy of composition.

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

Never come across a sound cosmological argument. Further, the mechanism behind the big bang (which wasn't big and didn't bang) is soemthing we're working on. Given that we've only known that the cosmos was bigger than just the Milky Way for 80 years, though, cosmology is still quite a young science. Moreover, what you have just done is flat-out admitted that you are partial to god of the gaps reasoning, because that's what that constitutes.