GetMeThereCommentary Thread: LINK
Debate Question: Is it necessary to assume the input of a “god” for existence to be as it is?
For the purposes of this debate a “god” is defined as a creative or productive force with a human-like consciousness: it thinks, plans, and wills creations and productions. Furthermore, the god has created, at least in the primary sense, our cosmos. This is NOT a debate about the existence of such a god. The requirement is to demonstrate that a god is NECESSARY for things to be as they are. It follows directly, then, that an affirmative demonstration of the question would ALSO show that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for things to be as they are WITHOUT the input of a god.
If there were a god who could be easily and clearly observed by all, it would be difficult to ask the debate question, or to ask the question “Could existence as we see it be so without a god?” But such a god does not exist—the atheists from the forum are part of “all,” and they haven’t observed it.
Direct proofs for the existence of a god have been invariably rejected by skeptics. It’s unlikely that a new debate would unexpectedly convince skeptics.
But the debate question can be addressed WITHOUT the need to demonstrate the existence of the god directly, yet it would prove its existence indirectly. On the other hand, FAILURE to answer the question in the affirmative would NOT disprove the existence of a god. Thus this would seem to be a risky question for atheists to address, and a risk-free question for theists to address. However, a common idea of theists is the obviousness of god’s input into existence. If a theist were unable to demonstrate that the input of god was necessary for things to be as they are, that failure would demonstrate that the reported obviousness of god’s input which they claim is erroneous.Final Note to Majesty:
If you have any problems with the above, let me know and we will make changes that satisfy us both.