Head to head proof of God

[FinalEnigma]

I've got an idea for an interesting exercise. Why don't we have head to head on the arguments for God? Any theist who believes and feels qualified to defend a particular argument vs any atheist/agnostic/non-theist/even theist who feels qualified to refute the argument.

I'm no expert, but I will debate any of the standard arguments for the existence of God with a theist. The arguments for debate are the following(If is miss one that you will to defend as a theist, feel free to mention it and link to it.)

1) Pascals wager
2) Kalam argument
3) Ontological argument
4) Teleological argument
5) Moral argument
6) Argument from religious experience
7) Anthropic argument
8) The Transcendental argument

Any takers? theists, please pick an argument you feel qualified to support, say so in this thread, and we will find a person who believes they can refute it.

[FinalEnigma]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

Your ground rules seem good to me, but I need to look at other head-to-heads to see what their ground rules are for comparison before we get started (I don't want an OJ trial, so to speak). I also need to look into the moral arguments for and against a God so that I will be prepared.

of course.

I can see a problem right off the bat. WHAT is morality?

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

#1, 2, and 4 seems to be circular reasoning (or that word that begins 'te')

#3, we have the problem of defining 'right human conduct' Is that the one you want?

We are sort of addressing this question in our debate anyway. Moral actions are all actions that are right - which seems somewhat circular, but isn't. it's what makes them right that is the question - which the debate sort of addresses. Basically 3 is the closest one that would be applicable I believe, yes. However, I'm don't think we need to define right human conduct, do we? to do this we would have to decide on a system of morality wouldn't we?

Just so I'm clear and prepared and don't waste my time, the Moral Argument is this?

Morality Consists of a Set of Commands
Commands Imply a Commander
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander

That is one of the variants yes, do you require to know which variant I propose to use so that you may look up refutations of it?

[muhammad rasullah]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

How can you debate the theist position when you don't believe in God? Your gonna play the theist position. lol. how are you gonna play something which you aren't it kinda seems pointless. no offense.

[FinalEnigma]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

How can you debate the theist position when you don't believe in God? Your gonna play the theist position. lol. how are you gonna play something which you aren't it kinda seems pointless. no offense.

people do it on debate teams all the time - I can still apply logic and attempt to find flaws in the other person's argument. further, my opponent is doing the same thing - hes a theist who will be arguing against God's existence.

[Intrepidman]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

Your ground rules seem good to me, but I need to look at other head-to-heads to see what their ground rules are for comparison before we get started (I don't want an OJ trial, so to speak). I also need to look into the moral arguments for and against a God so that I will be prepared.

of course.

I can see a problem right off the bat. WHAT is morality?

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

#1, 2, and 4 seems to be circular reasoning (or that word that begins 'te')

#3, we have the problem of defining 'right human conduct' Is that the one you want?

We are sort of addressing this question in our debate anyway. Moral actions are all actions that are right - which seems somewhat circular, but isn't. it's what makes them right that is the question - which the debate sort of addresses. Basically 3 is the closest one that would be applicable I believe, yes. However, I'm don't think we need to define right human conduct, do we? to do this we would have to decide on a system of morality wouldn't we?

Agreed, we will be using 3. I don't want to have the debate here, so to speak.

Just so I'm clear and prepared and don't waste my time, the Moral Argument is this?

Morality Consists of a Set of Commands
Commands Imply a Commander
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander

That is one of the variants yes, do you require to know which variant I propose to use so that you may look up refutations of it?

No, I don't require that I know which variant you will be using. I was hoping to be able to look up refutations ahead of time, yes

Are looking up refutations allowed? Or are we required to use our own deductive skills? Or, are we allowed to look up refutations only if we admit that it was looked up, or we phoned a friend?

IOW, It's OK to look up refutations all we want now, since the debate has not started. But once the debate starts, what are the rules?

[FinalEnigma]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

Your ground rules seem good to me, but I need to look at other head-to-heads to see what their ground rules are for comparison before we get started (I don't want an OJ trial, so to speak). I also need to look into the moral arguments for and against a God so that I will be prepared.

of course.

I can see a problem right off the bat. WHAT is morality?

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

#1, 2, and 4 seems to be circular reasoning (or that word that begins 'te')

#3, we have the problem of defining 'right human conduct' Is that the one you want?

We are sort of addressing this question in our debate anyway. Moral actions are all actions that are right - which seems somewhat circular, but isn't. it's what makes them right that is the question - which the debate sort of addresses. Basically 3 is the closest one that would be applicable I believe, yes. However, I'm don't think we need to define right human conduct, do we? to do this we would have to decide on a system of morality wouldn't we?

Agreed, we will be using 3. I don't want to have the debate here, so to speak.

Just so I'm clear and prepared and don't waste my time, the Moral Argument is this?

Morality Consists of a Set of Commands
Commands Imply a Commander
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander

That is one of the variants yes, do you require to know which variant I propose to use so that you may look up refutations of it?

No, I don't require that I know which variant you will be using. I was hoping to be able to look up refutations ahead of time, yes

Are looking up refutations allowed? Or are we required to use our own deductive skills? Or, are we allowed to look up refutations only if we admit that it was looked up, or we phoned a friend?

IOW, It's OK to look up refutations all we want now, since the debate has not started. But once the debate starts, what are the rules?

I would prefer our own reasoning, but if you like you may look up refutations. It has no bearing on the validity of our argument whether we looked it up or came up with it ourselves - the source of an argument is irrelevant to it's validity.

I will ask Otseng to add us to the head to head user group so that I may start the thread if it is alright, or is there anything else you would like to clear up beforehand? recall - the debate needn't take place in real time, so you have all the time you need to formulate your arguments between posts.

My OP will simply be a small introduction to what we are doing (for the reader's sake) and my variation of the moral argument, and we can go from there as you find premises/deductions that you disagree with.

[Intrepidman]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

How can you debate the theist position when you don't believe in God? Your gonna play the theist position. lol. how are you gonna play something which you aren't it kinda seems pointless. no offense.

people do it on debate teams all the time - I can still apply logic and attempt to find flaws in the other person's argument. further, my opponent is doing the same thing - hes a theist who will be arguing against God's existence.

Wait a minute. It's not my job to prove God doesn't exist, it's to just refute the claims of your premise, or did I miss something?

[FinalEnigma]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

How can you debate the theist position when you don't believe in God? Your gonna play the theist position. lol. how are you gonna play something which you aren't it kinda seems pointless. no offense.

people do it on debate teams all the time - I can still apply logic and attempt to find flaws in the other person's argument. further, my opponent is doing the same thing - hes a theist who will be arguing against God's existence.

Wait a minute. It's not my job to prove God doesn't exist, it's to just refute the claims of your premise, or did I miss something?

Sorry, I miss-stated. you are quite right. you are only intended to refute my argument.

[Intrepidman]

Why don't any theists wanna come out and play? most of my threads anymore it seems I have to (frequently in vain) attempt to cajole and goad theists into responding.

And surely you theists don't feel incapable of defending these positions? after all, I've seen you defend them many times in other threads.

Are you serious? The rules of logic are so stacked against 'proving' theism that it is beyond the pale (at least in this forum). I think it would be interesting to have a debate where the playing field were truly level. Where the assumptions of scientists were held to be as valid as a book from antiquity.

what you don't understand is that the playing field in this forum is rather level - if it wasn't then why would a christian have created it in such a way so as to stack it against himself?(this forum was created and is owned by Otseng, a christian.)

I think it's fair for the purposes of debate to say that the only thing we know for sure about the King James Bible is the sequence of letters on the page.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that the only thing we know for sure about the fossil record is that there appears to be the remains of living things in layers of rock.

I'll not argue, I'll simply disagree - this isn't the thread for this debate.

IOW, where theories are not considered as evidence. Only laws.

For example, the law of gravity says that all objects attract other objects, and the force of attraction decreases according to the inverse square law (IIRC). That would be admissible.

WHAT causes that attraction has not been proven, and thus is not.

THAT would be an interesting debate to see.

1st, the theories of scientists have nothing to do with the arguments for god, nor, in fact, most of the threads I create. The bible is generally a more useful source in my threads than scientists.

2nd, you speak as if evolution is not a fact. there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Gravity is in the same status. there are theories why gravity exists and how it works, but then there is the fact that gravity exists and works. in the view of the scientific community, evolution is equally as proven as gravity. The theory however, is still being looked at. This is my, and the scientific community's view - you have stated yours.
I'll not, however, debate evolution in this thread, and ask others not to as well.

also, logic is not skewed toward anything so far as I know, and further your objection(at least to this thread) is irrelevant, as what I am attempting to debate here is outside the realm of both the bible and science - it is within philosophy and logic - in the head to head I propose, the views of an ancient book have precisely the validity of the views of scientists - zero. There's your level playing field.

I would ask if you are willing to debate any of the arguments mentioned in the OP, if not, is it because you do not believe them? or because you do not feel capable of defending them? In honesty, I am somewhat shaky on the transcendental argument, so if that one came up, I would hope another non-theist would step in to take up the challenge.

If you do not believe any of these arguments, and know how to frame a basic philosophical/logical argument(not intended as an insult, some people do not know how due to lack of having taken a philosophy class or some such), feel free to propose your own. what I mean here is not a big explanation, rather an argument consisting of one or more premises, some logical steps, and the conclusion :Therefore God exists.

oh and btw, I don't throw canned refutations at things either - I tend more to think for myself and try to see why the argument is flawed, so if a theist wishes to debate - you might get an original opposing position.

Ok, I'll debate you. I pick the Athiest position.

Okay. I'm the theist now. So that means I get to pick which argument we will debate, since that was the offer I extended to theists. Lets debate the moral argument. Since you wish equivalent validity to scientific positions and biblical positions, and this is a philosophical debate, they both are declared to be of no value(or at the least, of equivalent value). If these terms are unacceptable, then you may propose your own, however, bear in mind that the terms I layed out here are what you yourself claimed would be a level playing field.

we've got a debate here. I'll play the theist position, and you the atheist position. What do you like for ground rules, I make the thread and the first post with the argument, then we go from there? and scientific and biblical position are of no value(or at the least equivalent value if one of us chooses to use one)? I trust you will debate ethically and honestly and give your full effort to the task rather than deliberately losing the debate to attempt to show the validity of the argument? I will certainly debate to the best of my ability.

Your ground rules seem good to me, but I need to look at other head-to-heads to see what their ground rules are for comparison before we get started (I don't want an OJ trial, so to speak). I also need to look into the moral arguments for and against a God so that I will be prepared.

of course.

I can see a problem right off the bat. WHAT is morality?

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

#1, 2, and 4 seems to be circular reasoning (or that word that begins 'te')

#3, we have the problem of defining 'right human conduct' Is that the one you want?

We are sort of addressing this question in our debate anyway. Moral actions are all actions that are right - which seems somewhat circular, but isn't. it's what makes them right that is the question - which the debate sort of addresses. Basically 3 is the closest one that would be applicable I believe, yes. However, I'm don't think we need to define right human conduct, do we? to do this we would have to decide on a system of morality wouldn't we?

Agreed, we will be using 3. I don't want to have the debate here, so to speak.

Just so I'm clear and prepared and don't waste my time, the Moral Argument is this?

Morality Consists of a Set of Commands
Commands Imply a Commander
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander

That is one of the variants yes, do you require to know which variant I propose to use so that you may look up refutations of it?

No, I don't require that I know which variant you will be using. I was hoping to be able to look up refutations ahead of time, yes

Are looking up refutations allowed? Or are we required to use our own deductive skills? Or, are we allowed to look up refutations only if we admit that it was looked up, or we phoned a friend?

IOW, It's OK to look up refutations all we want now, since the debate has not started. But once the debate starts, what are the rules?

I would prefer our own reasoning, but if you like you may look up refutations. It has no bearing on the validity of our argument whether we looked it up or came up with it ourselves - the source of an argument is irrelevant to it's validity.

I will ask Otseng to add us to the head to head user group so that I may start the thread if it is alright, or is there anything else you would like to clear up beforehand? recall - the debate needn't take place in real time, so you have all the time you need to formulate your arguments between posts.

My OP will simply be a small introduction to what we are doing (for the reader's sake) and my variation of the moral argument, and we can go from there as you find premises/deductions that you disagree with.

OK, I'd like to look at what you finally come up with, in case I'd like to edit it. We could discuss any proposed changes in PM. I'll probably get slaughtered as this would be my first head-to-head debate, but..... For Auir!

[FinalEnigma]

Alright, I'll start constructing my post and PM you with it. (it is my first head to head as well, btw.)

oh, and...For the overmind!

[Intrepidman]

Alright, I'll start constructing my post and PM you with it. (it is my first head to head as well, btw.)

oh, and...For the overmind!

Excellent, this should prove amusing.