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

[Love4All]

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.

Initially, and unfortunately for the cause of the spread of the Truth, you seem more interested in formalizing the debate than in actually debating, which indicates that perhaps you are more interesting in carrying on the debate than in actually arriving at the Truth.

This is my perception of where you’re at, accurate or inaccurate, but it looks that way to me. This does not bode well. Restrictions on the length of arguments, particularly lower bound restrictions on their length, seems silly and counterproductive. Are you really saying that unless I can multiply my words to 1,000, I can’t participate in the debate? What if my argument is succinct enough to be presented in seven? Should I repeat it one hundred forty-three times, to get to 1001 words?

They say brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[ngill09]

Initially, and unfortunately for the cause of the spread of the Truth, you seem more interested in formalizing the debate than in actually debating, which indicates that perhaps you are more interesting in carrying on the debate than in actually arriving at the Truth.

This is my perception of where you’re at, accurate or inaccurate, but it looks that way to me. This does not bode well. Restrictions on the length of arguments, particularly lower bound restrictions on their length, seems silly and counterproductive. Are you really saying that unless I can multiply my words to 1,000, I can’t participate in the debate? What if my argument is succinct enough to be presented in seven? Should I repeat it one hundred forty-three times, to get to 1001 words?

They say brevity is the soul of wit.

I’m pretty sure the word counts are maximums, not minimums. It’s to keep things succinct and focused. Otherwise these things tend to go all over the place. Also, structured debates, while probably not the best way of discovering the actual Truth, are useful for clarifying and comparing ideas.

 

[Love4All]

I’m pretty sure the word counts are maximums, not minimums. It’s to keep things succinct and focused. Otherwise these things tend to go all over the place. Also, structured debates, while probably not the best way of discovering the actual Truth, are useful for clarifying and comparing ideas.

Ok. Any particular reason we couldn’t start here and now?

I’ll offer: I know God. This is not presented as an argument, but it is a statement, and it is manifestly different from the statement, “God exists,” and while it is a statement you might question, it might prove difficult if not impossible for you to refute to your own satisfaction. You could just dismiss it out of hand, but that would be without basis. Perhaps this is not at all a good starting point, and if you do not think it is, then by all means offer another. It is the simplest statement I was able to make beyond, “God is,” and THAT statement suffers from epistemological difficulties.

 

[punkforchrist]

Wouldn’t that count as a thread on atheism, which is currently forbidden by forum rules?

Could be. I would need to check. In any case, I’m only providing the link to the debate (which is on another forum) by request through PM.

 

[punkforchrist]

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.

Thanks, I hope the debate turns out well, whatever your position may be. I’ve actually had several informal debates with my opponent, and he’s a class act.

 

[ngill09]

Ok. Any particular reason we couldn’t start here and now?

I’ll offer: I know God. This is not presented as an argument, but it is a statement, and it is manifestly different from the statement, “God exists,” and while it is a statement you might question, it might prove difficult if not impossible for you to refute to your own satisfaction. You could just dismiss it out of hand, but that would be without basis. Perhaps this is not at all a good starting point, and if you do not think it is, then by all means offer another. It is the simplest statement I was able to make beyond, “God is,” and THAT statement suffers from epistemological difficulties.

How about starting with a precise definition of what you’re talking about?

 

[Love4All]

How about starting with a precise definition of what you’re talking about?

Well, this is the first hurdle, to be sure. Perhaps it would be easier for you to eliminate what I’m not talking about. I believe in God, but that is not saying much if you don’t have an idea what “God” is supposed to signify. What the word signifies to me cannot be put into human language. Nonetheless, I say every Sunday with the rest of my congregation, “I believe in God,” so I must mean something by that. There is something that I believe is a reality that you — I assume from some of the things you’ve written here previously — hold is not a reality. Perhaps it would be easier to start from that. Assuming that you mean by the word, “God,” something that you do not think is real, what is it exactly that you think some other people think is real but that you do not?

It is possible that I, believing in God, don’t believe in what you think does not exist. It is possible that our two disparate ideas about what the word “God” signifies are so widely divergent that we actually believe the same things, just call things by different names.

I hope I am not assuming too much by assuming that you would not call yourself a believer in God. If I am not, then initially, please tell me what it is that you have the impression that I believe in when I say “I believe in God,” that you think does not exist?

 

[Love4All]

How about starting with a precise definition of what you’re talking about?

Perhaps we could start with, Ens Realissimum. Reality, but not reality just in the sense of “everything.” Rather, Reality as something specific that is not only “more real” than illusion, but also more intrinsically real than any of the things we can see, whether those other things are thought by us to be real, or not. The “most real” entity. While possibly vague, this may provide a starting point.

 

[ngill09]

Well, this is the first hurdle, to be sure. Perhaps it would be easier for you to eliminate what I’m not talking about. I believe in God, but that is not saying much if you don’t have an idea what “God” is supposed to signify. What the word signifies to me cannot be put into human language. Nonetheless, I say every Sunday with the rest of my congregation, “I believe in God,” so I must mean something by that. There is something that I believe is a reality that you — I assume from some of the things you’ve written here previously — hold is not a reality. Perhaps it would be easier to start from that. Assuming that you mean by the word, “God,” something that you do not think is real, what is it exactly that you think some other people think is real but that you do not?

It is possible that I, believing in God, don’t believe in what you think does not exist. It is possible that our two disparate ideas about what the word “God” signifies are so widely divergent that we actually believe the same things, just call things by different names.

I hope I am not assuming too much by assuming that you would not call yourself a believer in God. If I am not, then initially, please tell me what it is that you have the impression that I believe in when I say “I believe in God,” that you think does not exist?

Yeah… one of the main reasons I don’t call myself an atheist is because there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what God is. God is a lot of different things to different people. So whether I think something exists or doesn’t exist, or whether if I simply don’t know what the person is talking about depends on what they’re calling God. If you’re talking about Zeus, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t exist. More or less the same with Yahweh or Baal. I’m agnostic towards most forms of a Deist God. And for some people who simply say that God is love or the laws of physics or the superego, I’d agree that their God does exist (although I’d say calling those things “God” is a misnomer).

Perhaps we could start with, Ens Realissimum. Reality, but not reality just in the sense of “everything.” Rather, Reality as something specific that is not only “more real” than illusion, but also more intrinsically real than any of the things we can see, whether those other things are thought by us to be real, or not. The “most real” entity. While possibly vague, this may provide a starting point.

This is hopelessly vague. Your argument, as stated so far, is “I know that Reality exists because I know Reality.”

Are there even degrees of reality? I take “real” to mean “actually existing” and that seems like a pretty binary proposition.

 

[Love4All]

Yeah… one of the main reasons I don’t call myself an atheist is because there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what God is. God is a lot of different things to different people. So whether I think something exists or doesn’t exist, or whether if I simply don’t know what the person is talking about depends on what they’re calling God. If you’re talking about Zeus, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t exist. More or less the same with Yahweh or Baal. I’m agnostic towards most forms of a Deist God. And for some people who simply say that God is love or the laws of physics or the superego, I’d agree that their God does exist (although I’d say calling those things “God” is a misnomer).

This is hopelessly vague. Your argument, as stated so far, is “I know that Reality exists because I know Reality.”

Are there even degrees of reality? I take “real” to mean “actually existing” and that seems like a pretty binary proposition.

I would say that initially, from your statement here and from another statement made by you elsewhere, you do tend toward pantheism. So we can eliminate that from the start — I believe in God, and I am not a pantheist. In other words, the keyboard I am typing on right now is not God, and is not part of what I call God. The visible universe is not God, and not part of God, although to say it that way may lead to further misunderstanding of what I think God is. I will say it that way, though, because it is the truth the way I said it, and I will caution that it does not eliminate certain other possible views that may be similar but not exactly the same.

Above, you said you are pretty sure Zeus, Yahweh, and Baal don’t exist. Please clarify this statement of yours, because it holds the most promise of leading us in the right direction. Are you saying that whatever God may be, He cannot have the Name Zeus, nor the Name Yahweh, nor the Name Baal? Or are you saying that whatever God may be, you do not think He has any of the characteristics that you, in your mind, hold to be associated with those names? Or, do you rather envision some backwoods, ignorant goat farmer making up names for the lightning and the thunder and the seasons and the stars, and explaining the universe to himself in that way, and you don’t think his explanation is real? Finally, and I think this question will bring us closer to the point: are you at all familiar with the etymology of those names and what they were originally supposed to signify? Are you objecting to the names, or to the concepts associated with those names (and if you are, are you sure you know what the names originally signified?); or, are you objecting, on the other hand, to the basic idea that there is any intelligent being at all whom we could not in principle see and point to the way we can see and point to each other? I hope my questions are not too confusing, I know my writing is obscure sometimes — my apologies.

 

[Foofaraw]

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.

You must begin your “debate” with a clear definition of “God,” without which you are wasting your time, and the so-called debate will amount to irrelevant proselytizing.

 

[ngill09]

I would say that initially, from your statement here and from another statement made by you elsewhere, you do tend toward pantheism. So we can eliminate that from the start — I believe in God, and I am not a pantheist. In other words, the keyboard I am typing on right now is not God, and is not part of what I call God. The visible universe is not God, and not part of God, although to say it that way may lead to further misunderstanding of what I think God is. I will say it that way, though, because it is the truth the way I said it, and I will caution that it does not eliminate certain other possible views that may be similar but not exactly the same.

Above, you said you are pretty sure Zeus, Yahweh, and Baal don’t exist. Please clarify this statement of yours, because it holds the most promise of leading us in the right direction. Are you saying that whatever God may be, He cannot have the Name Zeus, nor the Name Yahweh, nor the Name Baal? Or are you saying that whatever God may be, you do not think He has any of the characteristics that you, in your mind, hold to be associated with those names? Or, do you rather envision some backwoods, ignorant goat farmer making up names for the lightning and the thunder and the seasons and the stars, and explaining the universe to himself in that way, and you don’t think his explanation is real? Finally, and I think this question will bring us closer to the point: are you at all familiar with the etymology of those names and what they were originally supposed to signify? Are you objecting to the names, or to the concepts associated with those names (and if you are, are you sure you know what the names originally signified?); or, are you objecting, on the other hand, to the basic idea that there is any intelligent being at all whom we could not in principle see and point to the way we can see and point to each other? I hope my questions are not too confusing, I know my writing is obscure sometimes — my apologies.

Zeus, Yahweh, and Baal are characters. I don’t care about the particular combination of letters, I care about the characteristics ascribed to those gods by the people who believe in them. And I’m pretty sure that whatever the ultimate reality of the universe is, it doesn’t have the characteristics of adulterousness (Zeus) or jealousy (Yahweh).

 

[Love4All]

Zeus, Yahweh, and Baal are characters. I don’t care about the particular combination of letters, I care about the characteristics ascribed to those gods by the people who believe in them. And I’m pretty sure that whatever the ultimate reality of the universe is, it doesn’t have the characteristics of adulterousness (Zeus) or jealousy (Yahweh).

There are different connotations of the word, Jealousy. To my mind, many people do not use it correctly. They think of Jones having a nice car and Smith feeling upset that Jones’s car is so nice, and wishing he didn’t have one so nice, because he himself doesn’t. But that is not jealousy, that is envy. Wishing to take away what belongs to someone else is envy. Wishing to guard what belongs to oneself, is more properly jealousy. Thus do we say that one “jealously guards” a treasure. The sin of coveting another man’s wife, for example, provides cases in point of both these ideas. The man whose wife she is is rightfully jealous of her. He has a right to be jealous, to jealously keep her away from other men, since she has given herself to him in marriage. The same applies in the other direction as well, of course. She has the same rights over him. But the man who is cheating with her, who is disregarding the first man’s claim on her, is envying her from him. If they do not even cheat, but he desires to take her away from him and would if he could, it is still his sin of envy. There are both the sixth and ninth commandments.

So it is in this sense that God is jealous of the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel belongs to Him. The whole universe belongs to Him by right, but the nation of Israel specially because she alone of all nations vowed herself to Him, gave herself to Him, and promised to be true. God performed many great signs on Israel’s behalf, and rescued them from cruel slavery in Egypt. There was a covenant made between them. They were supposed to belong to God. And if they wanted to go chasing after false gods (they did), God had a right to be jealous. They were wrong to do so, and God was right to command them not to, and to explain to them why.

 

[ngill09]

There are different connotations of the word, Jealousy. To my mind, many people do not use it correctly. They think of Jones having a nice car and Smith feeling upset that Jones’s car is so nice, and wishing he didn’t have one so nice, because he himself doesn’t. But that is not jealousy, that is envy. Wishing to take away what belongs to someone else is envy. Wishing to guard what belongs to oneself, is more properly jealousy. Thus do we say that one “jealously guards” a treasure. The sin of coveting another man’s wife, for example, provides cases in point of both these ideas. The man whose wife she is is rightfully jealous of her. He has a right to be jealous, to jealously keep her away from other men, since she has given herself to him in marriage. The same applies in the other direction as well, of course. She has the same rights over him. But the man who is cheating with her, who is disregarding the first man’s claim on her, is envying her from him. If they do not even cheat, but he desires to take her away from him and would if he could, it is still his sin of envy. There are both the sixth and ninth commandments.

So it is in this sense that God is jealous of the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel belongs to Him. The whole universe belongs to Him by right, but the nation of Israel specially because she alone of all nations vowed herself to Him, gave herself to Him, and promised to be true. God performed many great signs on Israel’s behalf, and rescued them from cruel slavery in Egypt. There was a covenant made between them. They were supposed to belong to God. And if they wanted to go chasing after false gods (they did), God had a right to be jealous. They were wrong to do so, and God was right to command them not to, and to explain to them why.

Jealousy is ordering your followers to murder people who don’t worship you. See Deuteronomy 13. Would this “healthy” jealousy you’re talking about involve murdering someone if they decide to leave you?

Your objectification of women is noted.

 

[punkforchrist]

You must begin your “debate” with a clear definition of “God,” without which you are wasting your time, and the so-called debate will amount to irrelevant proselytizing.

I have in mind something like, “a necessary and personal cause of contingent reality.” Even if it’s not God, it’s certainly very much like God.

 

[Foofaraw]

I have in mind something like, “a necessary and personal cause of contingent reality.” Even if it’s not God, it’s certainly very much like God.

This is a weak definition. It is the kind of definition that people go to war over, and kill one another by the largest possible quantity, in order to resolve, ending up on the same sides from which they began.

However, your definition is not worth debating. You’d need to define the terms “necessary” and “personal.”

Like it or not, conventional science has already defined a “god” that meets your criteria-- the Big Bang and Darwinism. To generate a worthwhile debate you would need to define a different starting point.

 

[Darryl_B]

Debate is very 19th Century and it was an alternate to entertainment. The existence of God cannot be debated, it can only be experienced. Knowledge of God is only imparted by God.
I cannot prove God exists and I also cannot prove He doesn’t. I only know God exists because I asked Him the question, which is all anyone can do.

 

[punkforchrist]

Debate is very 19th Century and it was an alternate to entertainment. The existence of God cannot be debated, it can only be experienced. Knowledge of God is only imparted by God.
I cannot prove God exists and I also cannot prove He doesn’t. I only know God exists because I asked Him the question, which is all anyone can do.

I fully agree that religious experience is an entirely legitimate way to justify one’s belief in God. Alvin Plantinga even goes so far as to call belief in God “properly basic.” However, the Biblical view also allows for arguments from natural theology. See especially Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:19-20.

 

[punkforchrist]

This is a weak definition. It is the kind of definition that people go to war over, and kill one another by the largest possible quantity, in order to resolve, ending up on the same sides from which they began.

However, your definition is not worth debating. You’d need to define the terms “necessary” and “personal.”

Like it or not, conventional science has already defined a “god” that meets your criteria-- the Big Bang and Darwinism. To generate a worthwhile debate you would need to define a different starting point.

As far as my definition being “weak,” a necessary and personal cause of contingent reality is at least very much like God. A thing is contingent if and only if it possibly exists and possibly does not exist. A thing is necessary if and only if it exists and cannot possibly not exist. A person is an entity with consciousness and an ability to reason. Aristotle once remarked that human beings are rational animals, in contrast to the brute beasts he was comparing humans to.

Now, the definition I provided only applies to the modal third way argument I’ll be defending. The second argument, the modal perfection argument, seeks to demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and necessary entity. That most certainly would qualify as God.

 

[brian614]