Can anyone give me some facts to help defend the existence of God?

[Gidras05]

Not only do I want to add in my personal vote for “New Proofs for the Existence of God” (Seriously the book is incredible. Philosophical arguments held no water against my anti-theist friend, but this book got him thinking).

I also highly recommend the books listed in the Apologist’s Bookshelf:

catholic.com/tracts/apologists-bookshelf

At least the first couple of them. Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft is definitely the place to start, and outlines in good detail some of the best proofs for what we believe in (and refutes objections to these claims). It goes from the existence of God all the way to the problem of evil, the Divinity of Christ, the historical reliability of the Bible, Heaven and Hell, etc etc.

I guarantee you that with those books under your arm, your defense of our Faith will be great.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Here you go

 

[yellow8yellowM]

Hey everyone. I am looking for a list of facts that I can use to help defend the existence of God.

The problem with this quest is that there will never be a set of facts that will conclusively prove that there is a God, or an afterlife, etc.

There is a wealth of information on what people speculate to be proof of God. None of this means anything. They are just speculations, based on scientific data or logical assumptions, that there is a certain probability that God exists. It should not add or subtract to your faith in God, but if it makes you feel better, I imagine it can do no harm.

 

[Khalid]

I personally believe there is mathematical proof-positive that God exists, in the sense of first cause, unmoved mover, pure act, which can not be challenged or denied by a rational individual. Whether a personal God exists that has communicated with man, there are strong arguments for, but no proof. Christianity, or any specific religion, is based on evidence and induction, not proof.

To summarize, there is proof that an Aristotelian God exists, but there is only evidence - not proof - for (or against) any specific (monotheistic) religion. Polytheistic religions can be eliminated based on the proof of a singular God which is pure act and first cause, proved, not demonstrated, by simple term logic.

 

[Perplexity]

The Cosmological Argument

There are many cosmological arguments with numerous objections leveled against them including Aquinas’ first 3 ways (considered to be cosmological arguments), various PSR arguments like Stephen Davis’ leibnizian cosmological argument popularized by William Lane Craig, Gale and Pruss’ version, etc. Fact is, whether you think any of these succeeds depends on a number of factors which differ from individual to individual. e.g., ignorance, how critically the premises were examined, background knowledge etc.

The Ontological Argument

An atheist must believe that God does not exist in at least one possible world: the actual world. But, if something exists necessarily, it exists in every possible world. Thus, in denying God’s existence in a possible world, the atheist is denying God’s existence in every possible world. That’s why the atheist qua atheist cannot accept an Ontological Argument, the theist would first have to defeat his atheism, but then…he’s not giving an ontological argument.

The Argument from Morality

If some true moral propositions are necessarily true, then they don’t require anything outside themselves to ground them. The moral argument commits us to very bizzare ideas like all true moral propositions being contingently true, and there being no intrinsic value. I think we should go with Richard Swinburne on these and say they’re are no good axiological arguments.

The Argument for the Unmoved Mover/to Pure Act

1. If something moves, then it is moved.
2. If something is moved, then it is moved by another.
3. Therefore, if something moves, then it is moved by another.
4. Therefore, if God moves, then God is moved by another.

The Argument from First Cause

1. All things are caused.
2. God is a thing.
3. Therefore, God is caused.
4. What is caused is caused by something else.
5. Therefore, God is caused by something else.

The Argument from Degrees

We get along fine with superlative properties without referencing any ultimate perfection.

The Argument from Contingency

As Richard Gale has pointed out, this is a fallacious inference. There is no way to logically infer that there is some time at which no contingent thing existed from the proposition that for each contingent thing, there is some time when it failed to exist.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

As Gale has pointed out, there really are no arguments that demonstrate the PSR, and appeal to the practicality of it is irrelevant to the rationality of it. Further, the WPSR is equivalent to the SPSR. Finally, if Swinburne is correct and atheists are committed to the inexplicability of the initial state of the universe (etc.), then atheists qua atheists must reject the PSR. i.e., it begs the question.

The Anthropic/Teleological/Fine-tuned Universe Argument

As Draper pointed out in his debate with Robin Collins, these arguments commit the fallacy of understated evidence. That aside, there are serious concerns with the principle(s) of indifference these need.

The Argument from Reason/Transcendental

Yeah, the atheist can just adopt emergent dualism or some such. That said, the vast majority of philosophers of mind are functionalists, not dualists.

The Argument from the Hard Problem of Consciousness/Qualia

This wouldn’t do much to atheism, especially if it’s established that dualistic properties supervene on brains.

The Christological Argument

There are alllll sorts of objections I’d want to wage against an argument from resurrection. But, for here, it’d suffice to note that P(God raised Jesus from dead|E & k) > 0.5 iff God exists, and God would want to raise Jesus from the dead. Hence, you need to demonstrate theism before anything.

The Argument from Properly Basic Belief/from Warrant

Atheism is basic for some. They observe suffering, evil, non-belief or whatever and just find themselves with the belief that atheism is true. Regardless, it seems difficult to say atheists can grant that theistic basic belief is properly basic and remain atheists.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

There are many cosmological arguments with numerous objections leveled against them including Aquinas’ first 3 ways (considered to be cosmological arguments)

The very fact that an atheist would want to refute the first three ways shows that the atheist fails to understand the arguments, given the fact that these three ways do not pose a threat to the atheist in his beliefs and are completely sound in logic. Only the followup arguments (4th and 5th way) threaten the atheististic position, which are the two biggest misunderstood arguments in philosophy. I blame the de-enlightenment era and ignorance of basic Aristotelian metaphysics.

 

[Khalid]

Those objections, especially regarding God being part of an infinite regress - a logical impossibility which I pointed out in my first post - are absurd. I didn’t give the arguments in my post, but you go ahead with common formulations anyways (I got to your first “refutation” of a Thomistic argument, and then gave up, but I didn’t see it to be a strawman, just capped off with a supremely illogical non-sequitur), and then add fallacious reasoning which I nonetheless rejected (infinite regress = not possible, not even in Cantor’s paradise) - even before formulating syllogisms - in my first post, immediately jumping on it out of atheistic bitterness. Something as basic as Aristotle’s Analytics (that is, simple logic) absolutely refutes your objections to the Thomist arguments, and everything else would get laughed out of a first-year philosophy class - the only true thing mentioned was what I indeed mentioned too, that there are several kinds of cosmological arguments (and your objection to the AfMorality, which I can at least respect).

Those objections have the feel of being drawn from Richard Dawkins instead of Richard Carrier (a first rate defender of atheism) or from The Miracle of Theism, or even a second-rate atheist like Michael Martin. I suggest you read some of those books - especially The Miracle of Theism (the atheists’ primer), along with Thinking Things Through by Clark Glymour, so you are familiar with the basic forms of argumentation and simple logic, if you wish to debate. Otherwise, it is as if talking to a stone wall, to attempt to debate anyone who says “the first cause is caused, therefore the argument falls apart” and considers it anything other than a joke.

Sometimes I am ashamed of those who call themselves lovers of wisdom.

As Gale has pointed out, there really are no arguments that demonstrate the PSR, and appeal to the practicality of it is irrelevant to the rationality of it. Further, the WPSR is equivalent to the SPSR. Finally, if Swinburne is correct and atheists are committed to the inexplicability of the initial state of the universe (etc.), then atheists qua atheists must reject the PSR. i.e., it begs the question.

For example - that makes absolutely no sense. Have you read Swinburne’s The Existence of God? “Atheists are committed to the inexplicability of the universe, thus sound logic becomes affirming the consequent [not begging the question, a different fallacy]” - what? From several of your objections, are you trying to argue that even logic is relative and based on personal feeling, and is mutable based on the frame of reference or preconceptions of the logician?

That said, the vast majority of philosophers of mind are functionalists

Argumentum ad populum anyone? Argumentum ad auctoritas mixed in? Functionalism is incoherent, but since philosophers of mind hold it - it must be true!

 

[Perplexity]

The very fact that an atheist would want to refute the first three ways shows that the atheist fails to understand the arguments, given the fact that these three ways do not pose a threat to the atheist in his beliefs and are completely sound in logic. Only the followup arguments (4th and 5th way) threaten the atheististic position, which are the two biggest misunderstood arguments in philosophy. I blame the de-enlightenment era and ignorance of basic Aristotelian metaphysics.

That an atheist would attempt to refute these ways might be odd if theists weren’t proposing them as arguments for Gods existence. Whether intended to stand alone or as a member of a cumulative case for theism, these ways are predominantly used to establish theism. So, perhaps we could distinguish between how these ways are almost always used (which is of interest to the atheist) with other ways they could be used (which needn’t interest the atheist qua atheist).

 

[Perplexity]

Those objections, especially regarding God being part of an infinite regress - a logical impossibility which I pointed out in my first post - are absurd.

So, I didn’t say a thing about infinite regresses. You obviously didn’t read my post.

I didn’t give the arguments in my post, but you go ahead with common formulations anyways (I got to your first “refutation” of a Thomistic argument, and then gave up, but I didn’t see it to be a strawman, just capped off with a supremely illogical non-sequitur), and then add fallacious reasoning which I nonetheless rejected (infinite regress = not possible, not even in Cantor’s paradise) - even before formulating syllogisms - in my first post, immediately jumping on it out of atheistic bitterness.

All of my responses are logically valid arguments. So, they couldn’t possibly have non-sequiturs in them. Perhaps you reject some of their premises. But, the fact that you accuse them of non-sequitur only betrays an ignorance of basic propositional and predicate logic. And…again…I never said a thing about infinite regresses

Something as basic as Aristotle’s Analytics (that is, simple logic) absolutely refutes your objections to the Thomist arguments, and everything else would get laughed out of a first-year philosophy class - the only true thing mentioned was what I indeed mentioned too, that there are several kinds of cosmological arguments (and your objection to the AfMorality, which I can at least respect).

the only premises in my objection to Thomas’ first way are Thomistic principles bruh. I think you’re in over your head.

Those objections have the feel of being drawn from Richard Dawkins instead of Richard Carrier (a first rate defender of atheism) or from The Miracle of Theism, or even a second-rate atheist like Michael Martin. I suggest you read some of those books - especially The Miracle of Theism (the atheists’ primer), along with Thinking Things Through by Clark Glymour, so you are familiar with the basic forms of argumentation and simple logic, if you wish to debate. Otherwise, it is as if talking to a stone wall, to attempt to debate anyone who says “the first cause is caused, therefore the argument falls apart” and considers it anything other than a joke.

Carrier is a first rate defender of atheism!? Folks, I’d advise being skeptical of everything this guy says after this point. Michael Martin is ok. No reference J.J.C. Smart, Graham Oppy, Howard Sobel, Quentin Smith, or Paul Draper? How about Rowe? I don’t think this guy knows what he’s gotten himself into.

For example - that makes absolutely no sense. Have you read Swinburne’s The Existence of God? “Atheists are committed to the inexplicability of the universe, thus sound logic becomes affirming the consequent [not begging the question, a different fallacy]” - what? From several of your objections, are you trying to argue that even logic is relative and based on personal feeling, and is mutable based on the frame of reference or preconceptions of the logician?

Of course I’ve read Swinburne’s The Existence of God (2nd edition). The very fact that you don’t think Swinburne advocates this position tells me you can’t have read it. That’s one of the main points of his first argument for theism! (His inductive cosmological argument)

I have absolutely no idea how your remarks on logic are relevant to anything I’ve said.

Argumentum ad populum anyone? Argumentum ad auctoritas mixed in? Functionalism is incoherent, but since philosophers of mind hold it - it must be true!

I never once inferred that functionalism is true because most philosophers of mind are functionalists. I don’t know who this guy thinks he is calling the most popular position amongst professional philosophers of mind ‘incoherent’ this is unbelievable. I’m sorry Khalid, but given the numerous elemtary mistakes, misrepresentations, and general platitudes you’ve thrown out here in a single post, I can’t take you as a serious defender of theism.

 

[Khalid]

That “the first cause was caused” asserts an infinite regress. With all of the elementary mistakes you have made (asserting the use of a fallacy and then performing the same fallacy in the next sentence!) I don’t think Richard Carrier or JL Mackie (Graham Oppy, I like, Paul Draper is a hack; I’ve heard of Sobel but not read him; I am not familiar with the others you mentioned) will have to worry about losing their go-to status as my textbooks on atheistic defense any time soon

Now, if there’s a single argument for theism - say, the Kalam Cosmological, or the Moral, etc., that you wish to debate, one at a time, I am willing to (and, indeed, if, by some necessarily subjective measure, you succeed in winning a series of debates against the main arguments, or you build a stronger case for atheism, I will forswear theism, as my faith is not much more than an extension of my reason). Attempting a wholesale refutation of every theistic argument in one line - arguments that have been defended and attacked across countless thousands of pages in books and monographs - by argument to authority or popularity or whatever your objections to the principle of sufficient reason were, or by non-sequituring the Thomist arguments, well, I think you can see how a man would immediately discount such a one.

And, I will admit that I am more at home in formal symbolic logic (or even Bayesian statistic as in the last paragraph) than I am with Aristotelian syllogisms, even professing to be a Thomist. Symbolic logic is what was taught (and, therein, it is impossible to hide faulty reasoning, and is easier to parse). I have had to learn the syllogistic method much on my own from Aristotle himself.

Edit: Okay… I just realized this: that you didn’t realize I was being sarcastic in regards to Richard Carrier? I actually think the best that I’ve read was probably Antony Flew’s “God and Philosophy” from the 1970s, before he converted to Deism in what appeared to be senility (on the strength of the modern teleological argument, supposedly).

 

[Perplexity]

That “the first cause was caused” asserts an infinite regress.

Ah, right. I wouldn’t advocate that argument seriously, that’s just a reductio ad absurdum of what you said:

The Argument from First Cause (All things are caused, what is caused is caused by something else, an infinite regress is impossible.)

If all things are caused, and God is a thing, then God is caused etc. etc.

With all of the elementary mistakes you have made (asserting the use of a fallacy and then performing the same fallacy in the next sentence!)

Who knows what this refers to

I don’t think Richard Carrier or JL Mackie (Graham Oppy, I like, Paul Draper is a hack; I am not familiar with the others you mentioned) will have to worry about losing their go-to status as my textbooks on atheistic defense any time soon

Mackie was good, but his book is like from the 80’s things have far since advanced. Carrier is better for his work on the resurrection than on atheism, he’s not an atheist philosopher of any caliber. Draper has at least published major atheistic arguments which have received attention from heavy weight theists, regardless of the merits of these arguments. (The guy debated Robin Collins, who is one of the world’s foremost defenders of the fine-tuning arguments. Collins obviously didn’t think he was a hack.)

Now, if there’s a single argument for theism - say, the Kalam Cosmological, or the Moral, etc., that you wish to debate, one at a time, I am willing to (and, indeed, if, by some necessarily subjective measure, you succeed in winning a series of debates against the main arguments, or you build a stronger case for atheism, I will forswear theism, as my faith is not much more than an extension of my reason).

This sounds like it could be beneficial. Do you mean starting a thread in which we have opening statements, rebuttals, cross-exams and closing statements (etc.)?

 

[Khalid]

(Meant to be an, but ran out of time) Edit: Okay… I just realized this: that you didn’t realize I was being sarcastic in regards to Richard Carrier? I actually think the best that I’ve read was probably Antony Flew’s “God and Philosophy” from the 1970s, before he converted to Deism in what appeared to be senility (on the strength of the modern teleological argument, supposedly). I actually thought Michael Martin’s books were quite good, roughly on a par with some of the more popular defenders of theism, such as JP Moreland (and not quite as good as William Lane Craig, but both are similar - not original thinkers, but distillers of other arguments); I found little bad logic in them (but who am I to say?). Without a doubt the best theistic book (beyond any Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy, e.g. something that works in the current philosophical paradigm without having to change the other guy’s metaphysics first) is The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (edited, but not written by, ironically, JP Moreland and William Lane Craig).

 

[Khalid]

This sounds like it could be beneficial. Do you mean starting a thread in which we have opening statements, rebuttals, cross-exams and closing statements (etc.)?

Yeah - you got me there. That’s exactly what I meant! No misunderstandings or mishermeneuticalquasiexegetics there! Like, you know… a, uh… debate! At least on this forum, questions from the audience probably won’t include… “God came to me last night to tell me that gay love was real love and better than straight sex…” (Third question from the audience in Craig v Harris.)

I tend to think almost all teleological argumentation is hackish (so, by the same token, I’d have to say Collins is a hack too…screw you, Plato) so, that’s that. I think it’s weak, and I would be on my knees kissing Richard Dawkins’ ring asking for him to accept me in to his church if it was the only argument for theism available. It is defeated by the argument from poor design, in my opinion.

Arguments for fine-tuning are marginally better. Key word being marginal.

If all things are caused, and God is a thing, then God is caused etc. etc.

Note that I said in my first post, that I would post the first line of an argument to see if it she recognized it (I wasn’t posting syllogisms, but snippets, and then asking, “which do you find interesting?”; I was hoping to get an answer and then post syllogisms). And, it seems, in doing so, I fell in to the most elementary error, and I do deserve whatever is thrown my way for doing so. Erratum: “All things that began to exist have a cause”. (If I actually did post “all things that began to exist” - I had to, I couldn’t make that bad of an error - your critical reading emergent algorithm contained in the subunit prefrontal cortex needs an upgrade.)

Also, do you know of a way we can post symbolic (mathematical) logic on this forum using nothing but what this forum supports (i.e. not TeX)? Most things can be done, but I don’t know how to get the logical operators to work (negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, biconditional, inclusive or exclusive or, nand/and, nor/or, nonimplication, etc.), although I doubt many of those will be used beyond the basic five.

If we have to work with Aristotelian syllogisms I will still try, and likely fail, but I need real-world experience using them somewhere outside of my own head anyways. Mathematical logic makes it easier for everyone to see bad logic (although not bad premises, of course).

As the joke goes: “The school had its endowments cut, so the dean went around looking at what could be cut. He saw the physics department with its multi-million dollars particle accelerator and other high energy equipment, the chemistry department with its expensive chromatographs and spectrometers, and the math department with paper, pencil, and dustbin. And then he saw the philosophy department, and they didn’t even need the dustbin.”

(Much changed in the age of The Computer.)

 

[Perplexity]

Yeah, the BCNT is pretty intense. Hm, well I’m open to any argument for theism as a debate topic. Some seem over done like the Kalam, and Quinque Viae, so I’d hope for something like Jesus’ resurrection or some inductive case, but whatever you’re most comfortable defending.

 

[jschutzm]

Hey everyone. I am looking for a list of facts that I can use to help defend the existence of God. The type of facts I am looking for are facts about the universe and especially the earth. For example, I saw a fact once that said that if the earth was even 1 foot further away from the sun than what it is that we would freeze to death and that if it was 1 foot closer we’d burn up. I am not sure how much truth there is to that but anyway, that is the type of facts that I am looking for. You know, the type of facts that demonstrate the complexity of creation. Facts about the human body and physics in general are also gladly accepted.

There is evidence FOR, but no PROOF.

As my Secular Biology Professor, at a State College once put it: “It turns out that God is not the type of thing which Science is very good at proving and if he exists… is not something that fits neatly into a test tube”

So we can only find arguments FOR or evidence for - but not proof. That is the FIRST thing you must define and win.

IF God exists (which I utter believe) then surely he is larger then we can conceive of. Therefore, like an ANT understanding the curvature of the earth… HOW could we even perceive him or ‘see’ him?
It may very well be that we will only ever glimpse at him, even though, if he exists, he would undoubtedly be all around us.
In other words… indirect evidence is probably the best we can ever hope for.

---

There are several good modern summaries of Thomas Acquainas’s “5 Ways” - aka 5 arguments for the existence of God.

I think KEY for ME is this idea…

1. Nothing in this universe can be the source of its self. In other words, can ‘cause’ itself into being. No matter how badly a thing wants to exist of is needed… it always requires another THING to cause it into existence.
   The very first particle could not will or cause itself into existence… it needed something else to make it exist.
   Logically… Atheism and a purely sicentific view of this universe falls prey to a series of endless regressions. A re-cursive causal loop.
   “and what caused THAT to exist?” and then “what caused THAT to exist?” and then “where did that come from?” - so on and so forth.
2. Thomas Acquainas, a student of the Aristotle school of logic - postulated that if anything “exists” then there needs to be something which posseses pure “existence” or is the very definition of “existence” In other words… the FIRST “to be” the first cause from which all other causes came from. He calls this “essene” which I think is Latin for “exists”
   God is therefore pure existence, or the first cause… from which all other causes or things exist.
   This is necessary to escape the Atheists endless progression of causal effects or “sources”

You can then layer onto this fundamental argument any number of pieces of evidence to support this idea.

If you want to get really metaphysical… dive into concepts like “justice” “good” and why we prefer these things over what we consider “evil” – why that without some sort of initial directive or law giver… we should have doubt that any of these concepts would EVER come into existence… even given a hundred billion years.

Lastly… all arguments for or against the existence of God are hinged on 1 central idea…
That we humans are rational and/or logical - However, we have reason to doubt even this, without God. Because without a Prime mover… a “law giver” an initial source of logic and reason… then our concepts of logic and reason developed PURELY from the illogical minds of animals, from the irrational, without any guidance or blueprint. We never see illogic develop into logic without help… or irrationality suddenly become ration. Even given a very long time… what ‘mechanism’ would cause rataionlity to be developed? – IF our minds came from the irrtational minds of animals… then we have EVERY reason to doubt the conclusions they come to.
Thus even the conclusion that God does not exist could be flawed because it presumes rationality without any proof or evidence of it.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

That an atheist would attempt to refute these ways might be odd if theists weren’t proposing them as arguments for Gods existence. Whether intended to stand alone or as a member of a cumulative case for theism, these ways are predominantly used to establish theism. So, perhaps we could distinguish between how these ways are almost always used (which is of interest to the atheist) with other ways they could be used (which needn’t interest the atheist qua atheist).

True, they are part of a systematic argument to prove God, but only when all five ways are seen as a whole. The Thomistic cosmological arguments standing alone do not presuppose an intelligent being, only that the unmoved mover is non-physical, pure act, it’s existence is identical to it’s essence, and necessary. One can simply assert that whatever this mover is, is prime matter such Stephen Hawking’s approach that the laws of gravity was the prime that gave way to the universe, that theory fits when the last two arguments are ignored. I just find it odd atheists spend so much time attacking those arguments.

 

[Perplexity]

True, they are part of a systematic argument to prove God, but only when all five ways are seen as a whole. The Thomistic cosmological arguments standing alone do not presuppose an intelligent being, only that the unmoved mover is non-physical, pure act, it’s existence is identical to it’s essence, and necessary. One can simply assert that whatever this mover is, is prime matter such Stephen Hawking’s approach that the laws of gravity was the prime that gave way to the universe, that theory fits when the last two arguments are ignored. I just find it odd atheists spend so much time attacking those arguments.

Yeah fair point Trevor. An atheist qua atheist needn’t be interested in these arguments outside a case for theism, and probably accepts their conclusions as exemplified by Hawking.

Although independent of the whole theism discussion, I think the eternality of motion precludes an unmoved mover. I understand the attempts to show not only that they’re compatible but that an unmoved mover has to exist, regardless of whether motion is eternal. But the more I’ve reflected on things like ST 1, Q. 46, A. 1, objection 5, and response to objection 5; and of course ST 1, Q. 45, A. 2 reply to objection 2, I don’t see how an unmoved mover could exist if it does anything.

 

[Khalid]

Yeah, the BCNT is pretty intense. Hm, well I’m open to any argument for theism as a debate topic. Some seem over done like the Kalam, and Quinque Viae, so I’d hope for something like Jesus’ resurrection or some inductive case, but whatever you’re most comfortable defending.

Hell, you choose. I need experience debating on another man’s topic and another man’s terms, all-too-often dictating those myself, finding myself - even in local amateur philosopher’s meetings - head and shoulders above everyone else and virtually always taking the lead. And I almost always defend the Kalam or Argument from Morality, those being the two most familiar and two most powerful when combined to form a cumulative case for a personal God, in my experience. Mostly the Kalam argument - I’ve even gained a two Theists (and two Christians) and a Deist out of two agnostics and one atheist from it. I’ve become an amateur expert on it, and from arguing little else in the realm of natural theology, have indeed become enrusted. And it was one of the few I was familiar with as a Muslim, being proposed by the one pet token orthodox Sunni philosopher-theologian, al Ghazali. The other perennial debate is deontology v. virtue v. consequentialism v. preference utilitarianism.

I can imagine (and almost see) how it’s become very deleterious for my philosophical growth, and, even, indeed, my sharpness: “for as stone sharpens blade, one man sharpens another”.

 

[Perplexity]

Hell, you choose. I need experience debating on another man’s topic and another man’s terms, all-too-often dictating those myself, finding myself - even in local amateur philosopher’s meetings - head and shoulders above everyone else and virtually always taking the lead. And I almost always defend the Kalam or Argument from Morality, those being the two most familiar and two most powerful when combined to form a cumulative case for a personal God, in my experience. Mostly the Kalam argument - I’ve even gained a two Theists (and two Christians) and a Deist out of two agnostics and one atheist from it. I’ve become an amateur expert on it, and from arguing little else in the realm of natural theology, have indeed become enrusted. And it was one of the few I was familiar with as a Muslim, being proposed by the one pet token orthodox Sunni philosopher-theologian, al Ghazali. The other perennial debate is deontology v. virtue v. consequentialism v. preference utilitarianism.

I can imagine (and almost see) how it’s become very deleterious for my philosophical growth, and, even, indeed, my sharpness: “for as stone sharpens blade, one man sharpens another”.

Ah, well Kalam it is then! The last academic piece on the Kalam I’ve studied was WLC and Sinclair’s piece in the blackwell companion to natural theology. Should be a good challenge.

As far as the debate format, I’m not sure what you had in mind but I’ve found the following to be good:

Opening Statements word max. 1,500.

Rebuttals word max. 1,500.

Cross Exam. max. 4 questions each, 250 word max.

Cross Exam. responses 250 word max.

Closing Statements, word max 2,000.

 

[Khalid]

Christ almighty, my average post is the length of a short story! Argh. I made my bed in which I now must lay. No wonder I usually set the terms…

Did you think I was hoping for Kalam because I defend it against numbnuts probably twice a week? As the great Shakespeare once wrote, “LOL”. The Wiley-Blackwell piece is also the last that I have studied, and, I believe, the best. (I was kind of hoping for a chance to try to use Plantinga’s ontological argument, since the logic is so complex you can’t use it verbally.)