The hackenslash Challenge

[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?

[pilchardo]

Aren't there plenty of threads for this already?

[Recusant]

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 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.

[hackenslash]

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 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.

[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 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?

[hackenslash]

That's the idea, yes.

Edit: Oh, and his challenge.

[pilchardo]

That's the idea, yes.

Edit: Oh, and his challenge.

How long do you want it to go on for?

[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.

[pilchardo]

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?

[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.

[pilchardo]

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?

[LegendarySandwich]

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?

[Recusant]

Which ones are the usual ones?

We had a member here recently who presented a list of what he called evidence for the existence of a god.

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.

[LegendarySandwich]

Which ones are the usual ones?

We had a member here recently who presented a list of what he called evidence for the existence of a god.

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.

[iSok]

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