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.

[tyga]

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?

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

Actually, that question is quite easy to answer. "What is morality?"

Morality is the agreed upon virtues and/or values of any given society, which derive from the Ethical integrity of that society.

So what you really ought be asking is, "what is ethics" and "what provides ethics with integrity"?

Here, I think, is an appropriate question to ask.

"What power gives Ethics its integrity?"

I argue that Ethics derives its integrity through constant vigilance of attention and intention. That it is perfectly acceptable and possible to achieve a high level of ethical integrity (and therefore morals ) without resorting to fictional father figures, such as Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Atum.

[Confused]

I guess I am looking for more clarification as to what your head to head to be. Is it proof of Gods existence, or of Gods morality? Or something else? From what I have seen, I think it could pan out to be a good debate as both debaters seem willing to play devils advocate and I have yet to see major issues/infractions from either debaters in regards t forum rules.

[Intrepidman]

I guess I am looking for more clarification as to what your head to head to be. Is it proof of Gods existence, or of Gods morality? Or something else? From what I have seen, I think it could pan out to be a good debate as both debaters seem willing to play devils advocate and I have yet to see major issues/infractions from either debaters in regards t forum rules.

I PM'd you the rules so far. Did you get them?

[FinalEnigma]

So far We've got our set of rules, which I will post when we are ready to start, as of now, we are selecting our moderators, and then we will be ready.

[klatu]

While historical 'proofs' may have been little more than linguistic gymnastics and failed to convince anyone other then a few scholars, a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ may offer something a little more to chew over.

Redefining Faith, the Word, and the Resurrection, this new interpretation, provides the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable, evidence based truth embodied in action.

Defining a single moral principle this new teaching offers the promise [Word] of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of Perfect Faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this experience, personal encounter and liberation by transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection' , the justification of faith.

So for the first time in history, a new moral tenet exists, offering access by faith, to absolute proof for its belief. Trials of this new teaching are under way in several countries. For those with a revolutionary bent, and wishing to join these trials, the complete proof, understood as a test of the human heart, can be examined and downloaded from the web at a variety of sites including: http://www.energon.org.uk

[Intrepidman]

While historical 'proofs' may have been little more than linguistic gymnastics and failed to convince anyone other then a few scholars, a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ may offer something a little more to chew over.

Redefining Faith, the Word, and the Resurrection, this new interpretation, provides the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable, evidence based truth embodied in action.

Defining a single moral principle this new teaching offers the promise [Word] of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of Perfect Faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this experience, personal encounter and liberation by transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection' , the justification of faith.

So for the first time in history, a new moral tenet exists, offering access by faith, to absolute proof for its belief. Trials of this new teaching are under way in several countries. For those with a revolutionary bent, and wishing to join these trials, the complete proof, understood as a test of the human heart, can be examined and downloaded from the web at a variety of sites including: http://www.energon.org.uk

Hey! No fair giving my opponent ammo after we have agreed to debate.

[FinalEnigma]

No worries intrepid. that post doesn't help me any, anyway. :/

[discus70]

I would love to debate this from a theistic perspective but I'm afraid there wouldn't be much of a debate. My belief differs from the typical theistic view and I claim to have no proof of the existence of a higher power or force.

[FinalEnigma]

doesn't seem like there is going to be much of a debate anyway, as my head to head opponent seems unwilling to engage in the debate that he challenged me to, and I posted my opening argument to, over a week ago.

[Intrepidman]

I'm leaving the forum anyway, so it doesn't matter.