Head-to-head against otseng

Post by **otseng** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:21 pm

There has been some interest shown in debating me head-to-head on the evidence for God.

Here is what we'll debate: Which is a more rational position to hold - God exists or God does not exist?

If you are interested in debating me, post here in this thread. If there is more than one, then you can choose among yourselves who will debate me.

Post by **otseng** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:20 am

McCulloch wrote: How about God is a supernatural intelligent entity that intentionally created this universe?

Even better. I'll accept that definition.

Post by **otseng** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:26 am

Bio-logical wrote:I would like to be sure that rationality is the same definition we have always used on this site, so that shouldn't be too hard.

Rational to me means that evidence and logical arguments should be presented. So, yes, it's the same standards that has always existed on this site.

I would also like to be sure that "god does not exist" is not an assertation that god cannot exist, but instead a stance that there is not yet a reason to believe he does.

Nobody has to "prove" anything. I don't have to prove that God exists. My opponent does not have to prove that God does not exist. But, each side should bring forth as much arguments as possible to see which side has a higher degree of plausibility. I'll also add that simply attacking the other's position does not mean it is evidence for their own position.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:52 am

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think it might be worth noting that "logical" and "rational" are being used here as if they were synonyms. They aren't. One may deal rationally with emotional issues, for instance, which have nothing to do with rigid logic.

It seems to me that "rational" has to do with conscious reasoning, while "logic" has to do with formal structured arguments, as in debate. Those are neither mutually exclusive nor identical.

The Devils Advocate · Post by **The Devils Advocate** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:31 pm

cnorman18 wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think it might be worth noting that "logical" and "rational" are being used here as if they were synonyms. They aren't. One may deal rationally with emotional issues, for instance, which have nothing to do with rigid logic.

It seems to me that "rational" has to do with conscious reasoning, while "logic" has to do with formal structured arguments, as in debate. Those are neither mutually exclusive nor identical.

Not sure how this works. I recently discovered that god is just. Religion is moved by mankind. Mankind will always manipulative, true faith will be hard to find or find someone who has it.

FinalEnigma · Post by **FinalEnigma** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:49 pm

So who all is interested in debating The Big O on this?

I'd like to.

I guess we are at this for the moment for format and definitions?

I have no structure in mind for the debate, but I prefer a more casual debate, rather than a formal structure.

How about God is a supernatural intelligent entity that intentionally created this universe?

Rational to me means that evidence and logical arguments should be presented. So, yes, it's the same standards that has always existed on this site.

Nobody has to "prove" anything. I don't have to prove that God exists. My opponent does not have to prove that God does not exist. But, each side should bring forth as much arguments as possible to see which side has a higher degree of plausibility. I'll also add that simply attacking the other's position does not mean it is evidence for their own position.

and the question for debate is: Is it morerational to believe in God, or more rational to disbelieve?

The Devils Advocate · Post by **The Devils Advocate** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:21 pm

Is there not a simple reply button?
God exists in the mind of mankind.
I believe.
But religion is so often used to incite.
Religion preaches love,peace and kindness and seems to be used for other purposes.
God whoever he or she may be is the head of this religion.

I wonder if our preachers were poor and lived amongst the people our world might be better?

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:35 pm

The Devils Advocate wrote:
I wonder if our preachers were poor and lived amongst the people our world might be better?

Just for the record; most preachers do live among the people, and very, very few of them are rich.

When I was a minister, I lived in the towns where my churches were, in homes provided by the congregation; in east Oklahoma it was a trailer. My top salary was $550 a month, and that was peanuts even in 1975. That sprt of thing was pretty common back then, and still is.

You can't get rich as a minister unless you have a TV show.

The Devils Advocate · Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:18 pm

Ok, most preachers don't earn. But if you have faith and conviction .Peanuts are good. Full of vitamins and protein. $550 or Â£300 a month in 2009. Do you really know what poor is? I would love that pay check today. You have no idea, no ideas .no commitment or faith. Up faith. Up commitment and worship you're God or Gods.
And so say I

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:35 pm

McCulloch wrote: How about God is a supernatural intelligent entity that intentionally created this universe?

otseng wrote: Even better. I'll accept that definition.

Great! Now what do you mean by existence? You see, for everything that we know, existence means that there is a particular time and place where the thing in question is said to be. Abraham Lincoln existed. He was at Gettysburg making an address at a specific time and place. What does it mean that God exists, if he is said to be outside of time and space? Should the question be asked here or should we wait for the actual debate?

Bio-logical · Post by **Bio-logical** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:49 am

As interested as I am in participating in this debate, I would give my vote to McCulloch. I will have to wait for another opportunity.

Debating Christianity and Religion