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?
Aren't there plenty of threads for this already?
Quote from: "pilchardo"Aren't there plenty of threads for this already?
I'm going to assume that
hackenslash is offering a formal one on one debate, for which there is a specific section (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewforum.php?f=43) here at HAF. This means that the people debating are the only ones allowed to participate in the thread (though the last [and only] time we had one of them, there was a comments thread). This is a markedly different format than the normal threads here. It also requires a bit more effort than usually goes into participating in the free for all give and take which characterizes regular threads here.
Quote from: "Recusant"Quote from: "pilchardo"Aren't there plenty of threads for this already?
I'm going to assume that hackenslash is offering a formal one on one debate, for which there is a specific section (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewforum.php?f=43) here at HAF. This means that the people debating are the only ones allowed to participate in the thread (though the last [and only] time we had one of them, there was a comments thread). This is a markedly different format than the normal threads here. It also requires a bit more effort than usually goes into participating in the free for all give and take which characterizes regular threads here.
Indeed. I am laying down a challenge, and a fairly open one at that. Offering my reputation as a prize, which is no small prize, in reality.
Quote from: "Recusant"Quote from: "pilchardo"Aren't there plenty of threads for this already?
I'm going to assume that hackenslash is offering a formal one on one debate, for which there is a specific section (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewforum.php?f=43) here at HAF. This means that the people debating are the only ones allowed to participate in the thread (though the last [and only] time we had one of them, there was a comments thread). This is a markedly different format than the normal threads here. It also requires a bit more effort than usually goes into participating in the free for all give and take which characterizes regular threads here.
You mean you can actually lock people out of the thread except hackenslash and whoever agrees to his / her challenge?
That's the idea, yes.
Edit: Oh, and his challenge.
Quote from: "hackenslash"That's the idea, yes.
Edit: Oh, and his challenge.
How long do you want it to go on for?
It will go on until somebody presents an argument worthy of debate, and possibly beyond.
if you have an argument for the existence of a deity that you think is undefeatable, let's have a look, and I will apply myself to it.
What I'm really looking for is a new argument. I think it's probably an unanswerable challenge myself, not least because supernaturalists have had 5,000 years plus to present a good argument, and none have been forthcoming. I'm looking for something that will keep me interested in discussing this with the credulous, because so far they have nothingwhatsoever, let alone anything of substance.
Quote from: "hackenslash"It will go on until somebody presents an argument worthy of debate, and possibly beyond.
if you have an argument for the existence of a deity that you think is undefeatable, let's have a look, and I will apply myself to it.
What I'm really looking for is a new argument. I think it's probably an unanswerable challenge myself, not least because supernaturalists have had 5,000 years plus to present a good argument, and none have been forthcoming. I'm looking for something that will keep me interested in discussing this with the credulous, because so far they have nothingwhatsoever, let alone anything of substance.
It's probably fair to say that there aren't any new arguments for or against. Which arguments do you most often come across?
There is always a new argument against. The only problem is that there are no new arguments for and, since most of the arguments against are rebuttals to the arguments for, there are no new arguments either way, The challenge here is to find a new or interesting argument for, so that we can defeat it. Not that it's ever going to be difficult.
As for the most common arguments for, they are the usual. There is a limited set of arguments for, and they've all been refuted already, not least because they are ignorant or rooted in ignorance.
Quote from: "hackenslash"There is always a new argument against. The only problem is that there are no new arguments for and, since most of the arguments against are rebuttals to the arguments for, there are no new arguments either way, The challenge here is to find a new or interesting argument for, so that we can defeat it. Not that it's ever going to be difficult.
As for the most common arguments for, they are the usual. There is a limited set of arguments for, and they've all been refuted already, not least because they are ignorant or rooted in ignorance.
Which ones are the usual ones?
Quote from: "pilchardo"Which ones are the usual ones?
Ones I can think of off the top of my head:
- Cosmological argument
- Fine-tuning argument
- Complexity of life argument
- Pascal's Wager or variants
- The evidence for the truth of the Jesus story
- Religious experience
- Faith
- Intelligent Design/creationism
What else?
Quote from: "pilchardo"Which ones are the usual ones?
We had a member here recently who presented a list (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6316) of what he called evidence for the existence of a god.
Quote from: "bandit4god"e1: the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence"
e2: the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order"
e3: arguments from consciousness and morality
e4: argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences
e5: arguments from history
e6: arguments from miracles
e7: argument from religious experience
Pretty close to
LegendarySandwich's list, I would say.
Quote from: "Recusant"Quote from: "pilchardo"Which ones are the usual ones?
We had a member here recently who presented a list (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6316) of what he called evidence for the existence of a god.
Quote from: "bandit4god"e1: the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence"
e2: the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order"
e3: arguments from consciousness and morality
e4: argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences
e5: arguments from history
e6: arguments from miracles
e7: argument from religious experience
Pretty close to LegendarySandwich's list, I would say.
Yeah, that works. All of those arguments are pretty horrible, but they are common.
If I just read more books in the past instead of wasting hours and hours on unreal tournament 2004....
Quote from: "iSok"If I just read more books in the past instead of wasting hours and hours on unreal tournament 2004....
GODLIKE!!
Quote from: "Will"Quote from: "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.
I was hoping that someone would accept Hackenslash's challenge. Are there not many theists here?
Quote from: "pilchardo"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.
Quote from: "Tank"Quote from: "pilchardo"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).
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.
Quote from: "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.
What's the objective, do you want to be convinced or do you want to refute arguments?
False dichotomy. I just want to know if anybody has any good arguments.
Quote from: "hackenslash"False dichotomy. I just want to know if anybody has any good arguments.
I see.
Quote from: "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.
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.
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.
Quote from: "hackenslash"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
topic split: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732)
Quote from: "hackenslash"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
Quote from: "Achronos"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.
QuotePersonally, 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.
QuoteFrom 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.
Quote from: "Achronos"As a divine and given reality, this truth is not dependent on proof and arguments from rational functions of the mind
So given all this, given science doesn't know everything, given that you want your soul to live forever, given that you want your existence to have a higher purpose.
There is no proof or rational functions of the mind that could possibly suggest that the Christian god is the one true god and that the other 10,000+ gods are not. Why on earth would a person tend towards one god more than the others? :brick:
How can finding out the truth be a threat to people that believe their god to be the truth? :brick:
How can a person make a call out to people and say don't look for proof, don't look to rational functions of the mind. :shake:
I am angry when they impose or promote their intolerance :yay:
Anyway, sorry Hack, didn't mean to derail. I just had to get it out of my system.
Quote from: "Stevil"Quote from: "Achronos"As a divine and given reality, this truth is not dependent on proof and arguments from rational functions of the mind
So given all this, given science doesn't know everything, given that you want your soul to live forever, given that you want your existence to have a higher purpose.
There is no proof or rational functions of the mind that could possibly suggest that the Christian god is the one true god and that the other 10,000+ gods are not. Why on earth would a person tend towards one god more than the others? :brick:
How can finding out the truth be a threat to people that believe their god to be the truth? :brick:
How can a person make a call out to people and say don't look for proof, don't look to rational functions of the mind. :shake:
I am angry when they impose or promote their intolerance :yay:
Anyway, sorry Hack, didn't mean to derail. I just had to get it out of my system.
Sorry to bump in,
but did you say that you get angry that people keep promoting their 'religious intolerance'?
It's Achronos' personal belief, what right do you have to condemn him for his belief?
Read your post again..can't believe you don't see your own intolerant and ignorant attitude...
If you want to change the world, change yourself first.
Stevil, Isok is right.
You say that you will never understand the mind of a theist, yet you want to see a world with tolerance, kindness and love. I notice you didn't include "understanding", which is odd, since people who claim to want tolerance, kindness and love usually also include understanding. Is there a reason why you didn't include it?
You say you get angry when "they" impose their intolerance, yet without understanding, you have no chance of being any different.
Isok is absolutely right, if you want to change the world, look in the mirror first. You're not so perfect yourself.
Quote from: "iSok"Sorry to bump in,
but did you say that you get angry that people keep promoting their 'religious intolerance'?
Yes, and I agree.
QuoteIt's Achronos' personal belief, what right do you have to condemn him for his belief?
Every right. Why right do you have to not have your beliefs condemned? Are you saying that a racist who advocates the extermination of Jews should not have his personal beliefs condemned simply because they're his personal beliefs?
And right on cue, there he goes with the race card again.
Quote from: "pilchardo"And right on cue, there he goes with the race card again.
What, exactly, is wrong with my analogy? Here, I'll use another one -- do you think somebody who thinks that dairy products should be illegal and everyone who breaks that law be executed has a right for his belief to not be condemned?
I have not condemned Achronos for his belief.
My statements were made in a general manor and directed from my personal feelings.
One does not have to "understand" in order to be tolerant, kind or loving.
Anyway, back to Hack's challenge, any takers?