Anyone interested in a formal debate on God's existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punkforchrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

punkforchrist

Guest
Debate proposal: Does God exist?

Affirmative: punkforchrist

Negative: (unknown)

Opening statements: 1,000 words each

First rebuttals: 750 words each

Second rebuttals: 750 words each

Conclusions: 500 words each

Since the proposal is in the form of a question, I’d like my atheist opponent to accept an equal burden of proof and present positive arguments against God’s existence, e.g. the problem of suffering, divine hiddenness, etc.

Any takers? We can choose a moderator, but I’m not sure that’ll be necessary. We should be able to police ourselves. 🙂
 
What would be the medium for this? I don’t think CatholicAnswers would be too happy with it.
 
Hi ngill,

I’m not sure what you mean by “medium.” As far as I’m concerned, we could just set up a separate thread, and at the beginning request that only two of us post on it. It seems feasible to me.
 
punkforchrist said:
Is that a “yes” to my open challenge? 😉
Click to expand...
I think he’s saying that the parameters of the debate, as you put forth are impossible, since your assertion that God does exist is rationally and scientifically unfalsifiable; therefore, he would be unable to provide positive proofs of God’s nonexistence. Thus Russell’s “Celestial Teapot”.
 
Pilgrim_333 said:
I think he’s saying that the parameters of the debate, as you put forth are impossible, since your assertion that God does exist is rationally and scientifically unfalsifiable; therefore, he would be unable to provide positive proofs of God’s nonexistence. Thus Russell’s “Celestial Teapot”.
Click to expand...
I just don’t see any similarity. God’s existence can hypothetically be disproved, especially if we’re talking about a maximally great deity and the problem of suffering is a successful argument. In any case, I’m still interested in participating in a debate on this forum, but I’ve agreed to a debate on another.
 
punkforchrist said:
I just don’t see any similarity. God’s existence can hypothetically be disproved, especially if we’re talking about a maximally great deity and the problem of suffering is a successful argument. In any case, I’m still interested in participating in a debate on this forum, but I’ve agreed to a debate on another.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’d like to see the debate, I’m always interested in well-formed, well-mannered debates. In my opinion you’re not likely to get one from people talking about teapots, flying monsters or magical men in the sky. At least that’s been my experience in the past.
 
Pilgrim_333 said:
I agree. I’d like to see the debate, I’m always interested in well-formed, well-mannered debates. In my opinion you’re not likely to get one from people talking about teapots, flying monsters or magical men in the sky. At least that’s been my experience in the past.
Click to expand...
Assuming it’s not against forum rules, I’ll be sure to include the link to the debate. 🙂
 
The negative side doesnt need to formally prove a negative.

They would simply need to carry the balance of probability.

ie. Which is more reasonable. Does? Doesnt? A bit like a guilty / not guilty verdict.

In any case it is possible to prove something doesn’t exist if the definition parameters are clear.

For example, does a cat exist in this box? Yes / No

 
Another way to prove (a negative) God doesnt exist would be to kill Him.

God used to exist. Now He doesnt.
QED
 
I would do it, provided you give a precise definition of what you mean by God.

I wouldn’t call myself an atheist, I’m more agnostic leaning to something like Pantheism, but I would be willing to argue the position that a personal God does not exist. Of course this depends on how you define God. I’m not going to argue that a simple uncaused cause can’t exist or anything like that.

The problem I mentioned with this “medium” (meaning this forum) is that the Philosophy subforum specifically has a ban on discussing atheism, and this might be pushing it. The mods don’t seem very consistent about it, however.

I’d also prefer if you didn’t do the William Lane Craig “shotgun” tactic, where you would bring up a bunch of different topics and expect me to refute all of them in my rebuttal. It would be better to stick to a few points.
 
The problem with threads about “atheism” is that they often deteriorate into threads about "atheists" and argumentum ad hominem takes over in both directions.
 
ngill09 said:
I would do it, provided you give a precise definition of what you mean by God.

I wouldn’t call myself an atheist, I’m more agnostic leaning to something like Pantheism, but I would be willing to argue the position that a personal God does not exist. Of course this depends on how you define God. I’m not going to argue that a simple uncaused cause can’t exist or anything like that.

The problem I mentioned with this “medium” (meaning this forum) is that the Philosophy subforum specifically has a ban on discussing atheism, and this might be pushing it. The mods don’t seem very consistent about it, however.

I’d also prefer if you didn’t do the William Lane Craig “shotgun” tactic, where you would bring up a bunch of different topics and expect me to refute all of them in my rebuttal. It would be better to stick to a few points.
Click to expand...
I’ve actually agreed to participate in a debate with a member of another forum. If you’d like to follow along, feel free to send me a PM and I’ll message you the link. Of course, the debate won’t begin until the beginning of June.

I don’t plan on adopting a “shotgun” approach. I’ll be defending the argument from motion, the modal perfection argument, and the argument from desire. Those are the “big three” I’ll focus on in my opening statement.
 
punkforchrist said:
I’ve actually agreed to participate in a debate with a member of another forum. If you’d like to follow along, feel free to send me a PM and I’ll message you the link. Of course, the debate won’t begin until the beginning of June.

I don’t plan on adopting a “shotgun” approach. I’ll be defending the argument from motion, the modal perfection argument, and the argument from desire. Those are the “big three” I’ll focus on in my opening statement.
Click to expand...
That actually sounds really interesting. You’ve got a natural theology argument, which I think are the strongest, and an ontological argument, which are hard to argue against given the language and logic involved. I think the argument from desire is pretty weak but maybe you can make it work for you. At least its more relevant to human experience than the motion and ontological arguments.
 
punkforchrist said:
Debate proposal: Does God exist?

Affirmative: punkforchrist

Negative: (unknown)

Opening statements: 1,000 words each

First rebuttals: 750 words each

Second rebuttals: 750 words each

Conclusions: 500 words each

Since the proposal is in the form of a question, I’d like my atheist opponent to accept an equal burden of proof and present positive arguments against God’s existence, e.g. the problem of suffering, divine hiddenness, etc.

Any takers? We can choose a moderator, but I’m not sure that’ll be necessary. We should be able to police ourselves. 🙂
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that count as a thread on atheism, which is currently forbidden by forum rules?
 
Why do we have to wait until June? What if the world evaporates before then?

I am interested in debating theists and atheists alike, against their misconceptions of God. Any theist who holds that God can be entirely contained within a concept that the theist can entirely contain within his own mind, is to my mind thinking of a false god. And there are plenty here who do just that. In many ways, atheists are better off, since at least they do not bow down before false gods. In some ways, atheists more truly obey the First Commandment, “you shall not make for yourselves false gods.”

I am interested in helping as many as I can to arrive at the Truth, and there are many, theist and atheist alike, who think they have it but demonstrably do not. The demonstration is where it becomes problematic. Can we find people willing to debate without getting their emotions involved? Many people are as cool as can be as long as you don’t threaten their central and fundamental personal idol (theist and atheist alike) but once you start messing with that, they lose it, and become utterly unreasonable. There are ancient, subtle, and powerful spirits fighting now tooth and nail to hold these people in stasis, and they will not let them go with a fight. They are fighting now with all their might, because they know their time is finished.

I am all for it, but I don’t want to wait for June, and although I am not convinced that it is not going to devolve into an ego contest, I am willing to give it a shot, at least. So where? And why do you say we have to wait for June? I’ll PM you too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top