Author Topic: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge  (Read 437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« on: March 22, 2014, 06:40:53 AM »
(Text copied and modified from skeptic54768's thread here)

If this can't be done, then theism is bullshit.

A lot of theists falsely think that their theism is "justified", but without evidence. Theism is a positive claim that God exists. They also have no idea what "agnosticism" means.

Sure, some theists like to say, "Theism just means we have faith in God" but this is a cop-out by modern theists and an attempt to push the burden of proof onto others.

I even heard some of them say, "Theism means that we don't think there is enough evidence for the non-existence of God." But, this backfires too because there ARE atheists out there who can disprove most gods. So, this definition gets thrown out the window too.

The proper meaning of "believing in God" means that you believe God is there.

So, that leaves theism as meaning "God exists" which is a positive claim. So, any theists out there want to defend their positive claim of "God exists?"

EDIT: And no, this is not a joke/parody thread. That's why it's not in the "Chatter" section. I just took what skeptic54768 wrote and modified it to show him how stupid his claims are, as well as in an attempt to get theists to see how full of shit their beliefs are.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1427
  • Darwins +51/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2014, 11:01:28 AM »
Iggily biggily know god, and Gollygoops don't. So Ittly bittly psghetti coochie coo pigglywiggly woospiedoo scribblescrabble spindingy capstcha zowzy bazinga I'm an athiest. (inspired by Jesuis)
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2014, 11:08:50 AM »
Iggily biggily know god, and Gollygoops don't. So Ittly bittly psghetti coochie coo pigglywiggly woospiedoo scribblescrabble spindingy capstcha zowzy bazinga I'm an athiest. (inspired by Jesuis)

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that....could you say it again?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1529
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2014, 08:41:14 PM »
(Text copied and modified from skeptic54768's thread here)

If this can't be done, then theism is bullshit.

A lot of theists falsely think that their theism is "justified", but without evidence. Theism is a positive claim that God exists. They also have no idea what "agnosticism" means.

Sure, some theists like to say, "Theism just means we have faith in God" but this is a cop-out by modern theists and an attempt to push the burden of proof onto others.

I even heard some of them say, "Theism means that we don't think there is enough evidence for the non-existence of God." But, this backfires too because there ARE atheists out there who can disprove most gods. So, this definition gets thrown out the window too.

The proper meaning of "believing in God" means that you believe God is there.

So, that leaves theism as meaning "God exists" which is a positive claim. So, any theists out there want to defend their positive claim of "God exists?"

EDIT: And no, this is not a joke/parody thread. That's why it's not in the "Chatter" section. I just took what skeptic54768 wrote and modified it to show him how stupid his claims are, as well as in an attempt to get theists to see how full of shit their beliefs are.

I don't claim to speak for any theist but myself.

There is no incantation, ritual, set of gyrations, prayer or any other formulaic set of actions which will bring forth an entity which can be seen and measured and commonly agreed to as God. 

I believe God exists but I also understand that is an statement of faith.  Therefore, I see no need to try and change others viewpoint. 

So, this theist concedes the issue.  If there are other theists who can prove God exists based on the kind of proof this website expects, please come forward. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2014, 09:40:14 PM »
Such theists do not exist, OCG. That's the thing about Faith: it's based on lack of evidence not on it.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1529
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2014, 10:32:17 PM »
Iggily biggily know god, and Gollygoops don't. So Ittly bittly psghetti coochie coo pigglywiggly woospiedoo scribblescrabble spindingy capstcha zowzy bazinga I'm an athiest. (inspired by Jesuis)

Egad, an atheist speaking in tongues.  Most impressive. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2014, 12:53:01 AM »
OAA, I would like to take up the challenge. Preliminarily, I concede that no 'proof' for God's existence is possible just as there is no 'proof' that the natural world exists. Nearly everything we accept as true requires some measure of faith (i.e. that our senses are accurate, that we are not brains in a vat, etc).

Since absolute proof is not achievable, the issue is not what is provable but what is most probable between competing ideas. In this case, it is not necessary to prove absolutely that God exists; more modestly, the requirement is to show that God's existence is more probable than God's nonexistence. If this can be done, it is intellectually honest and responsible to conclude that God does existence regardless of lingering doubts or unanswered questions.

OAA, if you are agreeable, I propose that this debate take place in the Debate Room page so as to provide better focus and clarity to the discussion both for ourselves and for any observers. Further, the topic of God's existence is especially broad. It would probably be beneficial to decide upon a specific argument pertaining to the existence of God. I am open to suggestions.

I do not pretend to be an expert in Christianity. As simply an educated layman, I enjoy honest and respectful debate that focuses on the arguments presented. To this end, I look forward to the possibility of our debate and to anyone else who would like to participate in future discussions.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2014, 12:57:33 AM »
Isn't the first step showing what "god" were talking about, and then determing only THAT god exists?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2014, 10:52:06 AM »
Isn't the first step showing what "god" were talking about, and then determing only THAT god exists?

Indeed. PhilosoB, define your god first, and then I'll decide if it's worth getting into an argument with you about it. Some gods (deists, I'm looking at you) just aren't worth my time.

-Nam

-One
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2014, 12:03:43 PM »
OAA, I would like to take up the challenge. Preliminarily, I concede that no 'proof' for God's existence is possible just as there is no 'proof' that the natural world exists. Nearly everything we accept as true requires some measure of faith (i.e. that our senses are accurate, that we are not brains in a vat, etc).

You just killed the discussion by starting off with solipsism.  You lost before you even got started.

Even if the natural world doesn't actually exist as we perceive, that doesn't prove that a god exists, nor does it make it acceptable to merely assume that a god exists, in fact it makes a god existing even less likely because if our senses are not trustworthy in determining nature, they are even less trustworthy in determining the existence of a god.

Next.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2014, 12:06:44 PM »
You just killed the discussion by starting off with solipsism.  You lost before you even got started.

Thank you, SevenPatch.[/sarcasm] Now he won't agree to a debate.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2014, 12:09:54 PM »
Thank you, SevenPatch.[/sarcasm] Now he won't agree to a debate.

Opps sorry, my bad.

Well his second paragraph was semi interesting.

No harm in debating the probability of a gods existence or nonexistence I suppose.  Although, I'm not sure why you would be interested in getting into a debate where solipsism would come up.

I can still modify my post if you would like.

EDIT: Although, asking for a definition of "God" might discourage a debate also.  It is so much easier to win a debate when what you're supporting hasn't actually been defined.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 12:14:28 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2014, 12:13:41 PM »
Although, I'm not sure why you would be interested in getting into a debate where solipsism would come up.

I think he wasn't going to make the argument (if it can even be called that) that "everyone has faith, therefore my god". Arguing with a solipsist isn't bad, as long as they don't resort to their solipsism right away. It's when they retreat to such things that you know you've won, both in your mind and in theirs.
Regardless, the moment a theist opens his/her mouth and says "god", they've lost.

I can still modify my post if you would like.

It's fine. I don't mind him seeing it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2014, 12:36:31 PM »
Indeed. PhilosoB, define your god first, and then I'll decide if it's worth getting into an argument with you about it. Some gods (deists, I'm looking at you) just aren't worth my time.

Broadly stated, my God is the God of the Bible. I believe he is a transcendent, necessary being possessing omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. He is also a personal God demonstrated though his acts of love, justice, grace and mercy, supremely revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

This is not a comprehensive or complete description of God (as such is likely impossible) nor is it particularly nuanced. The intent is to provide a broad answer to your question in order to provide ideas for a specific topic. I believe I have provided quite enough fodder for such purposes.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2014, 12:38:16 PM »
OAA, I would like to take up the challenge. Preliminarily, I concede that no 'proof' for God's existence is possible just as there is no 'proof' that the natural world exists. Nearly everything we accept as true requires some measure of faith (i.e. that our senses are accurate, that we are not brains in a vat, etc).

You just killed the discussion by starting off with solipsism.  You lost before you even got started.

Even if the natural world doesn't actually exist as we perceive, that doesn't prove that a god exists, nor does it make it acceptable to merely assume that a god exists, in fact it makes a god existing even less likely because if our senses are not trustworthy in determining nature, they are even less trustworthy in determining the existence of a god.

Next.

I did not provided any arguments for or against God's existence. You have made an incorrect inference from my preliminary statement. The intention was to show that absolute proof is not achievable for most ideas we hold as true. Consequently, some amount of faith is necessary to accept most anything as true. This also leads into showing how probability is a more honest and realistic measurement for knowledge.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2014, 12:49:46 PM »
Broadly stated, my God is the God of the Bible. I believe
<snip>

Got it. "Easy peasy", I believe is the expression.

This is not a comprehensive or complete description of God (as such is likely impossible) nor is it particularly nuanced. The intent is to provide a broad answer to your question in order to provide ideas for a specific topic. I believe I have provided quite enough fodder for such purposes.

It's not possible to completely describe infinity, as far as I know, but your explanation will do.

Find a moderator and let's get this debate started. Note that I have a busy schedule, with writing my book and processing lots of data for a class, both of which I'll be doing over the weekend. Weekdays are even worse, but I won't get into it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2014, 01:23:09 PM »
I did not provided any arguments for or against God's existence. You have made an incorrect inference from my preliminary statement. The intention was to show that absolute proof is not achievable for most ideas we hold as true. Consequently, some amount of faith is necessary to accept most anything as true. This also leads into showing how probability is a more honest and realistic measurement for knowledge.

I agree that absolute proof is not achievable, but that is a red herring as it is not what is being asked.  Absolute proof that a god or gods exist is not what is necessary, instead any proof or examinable evidence whatsoever would be a good start instead of mere claims. 

The idea of it being possible that "there is no 'proof' that the natural world exits" is irrelevant and does not in any way equal the possibility that there is "no 'proof' for God's existence".

I disagree in regards to faith being "necessary to accept most anything as true" as I require ZERO faith to accept that the world I live in is real as I have no other choice but to accept that reality is reality.  I require ZERO faith to accept that I am currently typing on my keyboard which is resulting in letters appearing in a message box of a Post reply form at the whywontgodhealamputees.com forums.  I could choose however to have faith that I am in fact living in the matrix and Morpheous is about to call my cell phone any second to tell me to run away from computer program agents out to kill me BUT I really don't have any reason to have faith in that do I.

EDIT: One thing I do have faith in is that most people are generally good in nature and don't knowingly go out of their way to harm or trick others (granted there may be some who do, I have faith that all don't).

Perhaps you are simply implying because I have sufficient evidence that reality is reality that it is acceptable to have faith.  I would have to ask how do you define 'faith'?

I myself define 'faith' as having trust that something is true without evidence.  If my definition is acceptable, what happens when sufficient evidence is introduced?  Is faith still applicable?

I would agree that probability is useful and realistic measurement for making a reasonable conclusion.  I'm not sure about how exactly honesty or knowledge are involved.  Someone could be dishonest in determining the probabilities or they could be dishonest in arriving at a conclusions based on probabilities.  Additionally, knowledge is part of the data that might be used in determining the probabilities.  I think your attempt at showing how probability is useful was flawed. 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 01:31:34 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2014, 01:45:29 PM »
Broadly stated, my God is the God of the Bible. I believe
<snip>

Got it. "Easy peasy", I believe is the expression.

This is not a comprehensive or complete description of God (as such is likely impossible) nor is it particularly nuanced. The intent is to provide a broad answer to your question in order to provide ideas for a specific topic. I believe I have provided quite enough fodder for such purposes.

It's not possible to completely describe infinity, as far as I know, but your explanation will do.

Find a moderator and let's get this debate started. Note that I have a busy schedule, with writing my book and processing lots of data for a class, both of which I'll be doing over the weekend. Weekdays are even worse, but I won't get into it.

This is completely agreeable. Qualitative posts are preferred to quantity, so speed is not an issue.

I am unsure who would make a qualified moderator. Perhaps, with your experience on this forum, could suggest one.

Regarding the topic, is there a particular premise that you would like to debate or is the plan to keep it broad? I prefer more specificity. Large posts about one broad question tend to become filled with little snippets addressing subtopics. The frequent result is a superficial cursory debate unable to tackle the finer nuances of each topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2014, 01:57:28 PM »
This is completely agreeable. Qualitative posts are preferred to quantity, so speed is not an issue.

Don't count on my posts being extensive. I have yet to master the art of "giving enough of a fuck to explore every single thing wrong with a post". Shouldn't be long, though, before I unlock the secret.

I am unsure who would make a qualified moderator. Perhaps, with your experience on this forum, could suggest one.

I pick ParkingPlaces (name might be wrong); only because he already supervised another debate of mine, and because I trust he can remain impartial. We'll also need to agree on rules. Give me a list of rules you think are good, I'll add ones of my own, and then we can agree (or disagree) on them.

Regarding the topic, is there a particular premise that you would like to debate or is the plan to keep it broad? I prefer more specificity. Large posts about one broad question tend to become filled with little snippets addressing subtopics. The frequent result is a superficial cursory debate unable to tackle the finer nuances of each topic.

Keep it specific. The topic of this thread was "Prove There Is A God", so I suggest we start there.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2014, 02:29:42 PM »
No one ever asks me to a moderate a debate--and no one ever wants to debate me. :'(

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2014, 02:41:44 PM »
I am unsure who would make a qualified moderator. Perhaps, with your experience on this forum, could suggest one.

I pick ParkingPlaces (name might be wrong); only because he already supervised another debate of mine, and because I trust he can remain impartial. We'll also need to agree on rules. Give me a list of rules you think are good, I'll add ones of my own, and then we can agree (or disagree) on them.

Moderator accepted. Going off the rules from your last debate:
   No insults (sources included. Insults do not form the basis for any serious argument)
   As much as possible, no intentionally baseless assertions (ask for clarity regarding questionable assertions)
   Debate closes when we agree it shall (Alternatively, we could limit it to a specific number of posts each).

Regarding the topic, is there a particular premise that you would like to debate or is the plan to keep it broad? I prefer more specificity. Large posts about one broad question tend to become filled with little snippets addressing subtopics. The frequent result is a superficial cursory debate unable to tackle the finer nuances of each topic.

Keep it specific. The topic of this thread was "Prove There Is A God", so I suggest we start there.

Since many different arguments are made regarding God's existence (i.e. moral, cosmological, contingency, etc), is there a specific one you would like to address or keep it open so a cumulative case can be made?

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2014, 02:44:28 PM »
No one ever asks me to a moderate a debate--and no one ever wants to debate me. :'(

-Nam

I can keep a list of willing debate opponents. Your name can be next, if that helps :)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2014, 02:46:44 PM »
Moderator accepted. Going off the rules from your last debate:
   No insults (sources included. Insults do not form the basis for any serious argument)
   As much as possible, no intentionally baseless assertions (ask for clarity regarding questionable assertions)
   Debate closes when we agree it shall (Alternatively, we could limit it to a specific number of posts each).

I think that seems fair... mostly. I have a couple of points to make:
Insulting sources is not insulting the debater, so it's not an ad hominem, and it's therefore OK, IMO.
"Intentionality" is unverifiable. How about just "no baseless assertions"?

Since many different arguments are made regarding God's existence (i.e. moral, cosmological, contingency, etc), is there a specific one you would like to address or keep it open so a cumulative case can be made?

If you think you can come up with a single, non-fallacious argument for the existence of your definition of "god" (and note that the first two you mentioned are fallacious, although I've never heard of the third), feel free to toss as many at me as you can.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6459
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2014, 02:53:19 PM »
I'll be happy to help if I can. I'm not a moderator any more, One, and I don't remember if I was the last time or not, but if there is any way I can help facilitate this debate, I'll be happy to participate.

Fear not. I am capable of impeccable impartiality.  :)

And One, it is easy to avoid insulting. Just don't do it. There are other ways to attack or protest points/sources you disagree with. I think PhilosoB's guidelines are reasonable.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 02:56:59 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2014, 03:00:10 PM »
I'll be happy to help if I can. I'm not a moderator any more, One, and I don't remember if I was the last time or not, but if there is any way I can help facilitate this debate, I'll be happy to participate.

I am well aware you're not a moderator anymore, but there's nothing in the one-on-one debates' rules that state that a debate moderator has to be an actual moderator.

Fear not. I am capable of impeccable impartiality.  :)

I know.

And One, it is easy to avoid insulting. Just don't do it. There are other ways to attack or protest points/sources you disagree with. I think PhilosoB's guidelines are reasonable.

I never said I wasn't able to refrain from doing it. If anything, I'd just rather not have to.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2014, 03:27:25 PM »
Moderator accepted. Going off the rules from your last debate:
   No insults (sources included. Insults do not form the basis for any serious argument)
   As much as possible, no intentionally baseless assertions (ask for clarity regarding questionable assertions)
   Debate closes when we agree it shall (Alternatively, we could limit it to a specific number of posts each).

I think that seems fair... mostly. I have a couple of points to make:
Insulting sources is not insulting the debater, so it's not an ad hominem, and it's therefore OK, IMO.
"Intentionality" is unverifiable. How about just "no baseless assertions"?

Insulting sources may not be ad hominem, neither is it useful in advancing a philosophical arguments. An argument is not defeated by attacking the source  but by addressing the argument itself. I included the intentional qualifier to imply that, at least personally, I will not knowingly or intentionally make baseless assertions to advance or confuse the debate. I agree that policing such motives are not possible particularly in this setting.

Since many different arguments are made regarding God's existence (i.e. moral, cosmological, contingency, etc), is there a specific one you would like to address or keep it open so a cumulative case can be made?

If you think you can come up with a single, non-fallacious argument for the existence of your definition of "god" (and note that the first two you mentioned are fallacious, although I've never heard of the third), feel free to toss as many at me as you can.

For clarity, does this mean that during the debate, any line of argument is permitted regarding God's existence?

Thank you, ParkingPlaces, for moderating.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2014, 04:05:28 PM »
Insulting sources may not be ad hominem, neither is it useful in advancing a philosophical arguments. An argument is not defeated by attacking the source  but by addressing the argument itself.

One might lead to the other, if the source is known for its lies, like Faux Noise Fox News.

I included the intentional qualifier to imply that, at least personally, I will not knowingly or intentionally make baseless assertions to advance or confuse the debate. I agree that policing such motives are not possible particularly in this setting.

I also do not intend to make baseless assertions, but I can't take you for your word. I don't know you. The opposite is true, from your perspective. Trust is earned; not given.

For clarity, does this mean that during the debate, any line of argument is permitted regarding God's existence?

Sure, as long as it's not something like the following
A: You make an argument.
B: I debunk said argument.
C: You make a new argument and ignore my debunk.
Repeat ad nauseam.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2014, 05:14:53 PM »
I suppose a Debate Room can be opened.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is A God - A Challenge
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2014, 05:52:34 PM »
I suppose a Debate Room can be opened.

Contact an admin. Right now I have other things on my mind.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.