Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Theists vs. Atheists

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 12:42:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you had to assemble two teams to debate the existence of God who would you pick?

My selection would be:

Alvin Plantinga http://en.wikipedia.org...
Richard Swinburne http://en.wikipedia.org...
William Lane Craig http://en.wikipedia.org...

VS

Daniel Dennett http://en.wikipedia.org...
Christopher Hitchens http://en.wikipedia.org...
Steven Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org...

I would pay top dollar to go and see this debate.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 12:47:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd like to see Sarah Palin in on that XD.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 4:42:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd like to see God and Jesus argue against their existence.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 4:46:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 4:42:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd like to see God and Jesus argue against their existence.

Wouldn't that mean the winning side, whichever it was, would blip out of existence? I mean, if they argue against their existence, and win, then they must not exist, and then blip!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 5:18:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
David Icke

vs.

William Lane Craig
Frank Turek
Paul Washer
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 5:37:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 5:35:12 PM, Puck wrote:
Dawkins is argument fail outside of biology.

What? Are you serious? How so?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 6:07:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 4:46:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/22/2009 4:42:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd like to see God and Jesus argue against their existence.

Wouldn't that mean the winning side, whichever it was, would blip out of existence? I mean, if they argue against their existence, and win, then they must not exist, and then blip!

Or they could play Devil's Advocate! Irony...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 6:28:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would choose Ron Paul, he would pwn every candidate listed.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Richard Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but he wouldn't be necessary in a debate with theists that accept evolution.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Apologician
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:53:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 5:37:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/22/2009 5:35:12 PM, Puck wrote:
Dawkins is argument fail outside of biology.

What? Are you serious? How so?

His arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class, to paraphrase Plantinga.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:59:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 10:53:11 PM, Apologician wrote:
At 11/22/2009 5:37:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/22/2009 5:35:12 PM, Puck wrote:
Dawkins is argument fail outside of biology.

What? Are you serious? How so?

His arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class, to paraphrase Plantinga.

I wouldn't claim Dawkins is a philosophy expert, but his criticisms of religion are most certainly sound.

Can you give some examples of his fallacious arguments?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Apologician
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 11:51:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 10:59:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/24/2009 10:53:11 PM, Apologician wrote:
At 11/22/2009 5:37:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/22/2009 5:35:12 PM, Puck wrote:
Dawkins is argument fail outside of biology.

What? Are you serious? How so?

His arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class, to paraphrase Plantinga.

I wouldn't claim Dawkins is a philosophy expert, but his criticisms of religion are most certainly sound.

Can you give some examples of his fallacious arguments?

Are you kidding me? Within academic circles, his writings are not taken seriously at all. He's simply a popularizer.

As for one example a fallacious argument, look at his "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit," his chief argument against God's existence. Firstly, it isn't even logically valid, so even if I grant the premises, the conclusion doesn't follow. Second, in order to identify an explanation as the best, we need not have an explanation of the explanation. Third, God is not a complex being. He's an unembodied mind, he has no parts, so how could be complex in the biological sense?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 2:03:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 11:51:27 PM, Apologician wrote:
Are you kidding me? Within academic circles, his writings are not taken seriously at all. He's simply a popularizer.

As for one example a fallacious argument, look at his "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit," his chief argument against God's existence. Firstly, it isn't even logically valid, so even if I grant the premises, the conclusion doesn't follow.

I would say it is logically valid, which is this: based on Occam's Razor, it is more probable that evolution occurred, rather than the "God hypothesis." This God would be much more complex than evolution's simplistic origins that increasingly became complex. He also asked, who designed the designer.

Second, in order to identify an explanation as the best, we need not have an explanation of the explanation.

Yes, I remember Lane Craig pointing this out in a video, and it was a sound argument. But you see, Carl Sagan already countered this. If we say that "who made God" is an unanswerable question, why not save a step, and say that "where did the Universe come from" is an unanswerable question. If we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the Universe has always existed.

So either way, God would be an unparsimonious and unnecessary addition that just complicates things further. It's not an answer.

Third, God is not a complex being. He's an unembodied mind, he has no parts, so how could be complex in the biological sense?

Lmao! How can you ascribe properties to something that hasn't been proven to exist, let alone observed? For example: I assert that alien unicorns exist, but people don't understand that they are not complex beings, they are invisible and very ill-tempered.

On the contrary though, I do require that when people argue for the existence God, that they clearly define what they mean. I'd rather that than simply asserting the very vague and meaningless word, "God." I need to know what it is that a person is arguing for, and "God" is not sufficient enough.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 9:22:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 8:07:05 PM, Freeman wrote:
Richard Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but he wouldn't be necessary in a debate with theists that accept evolution.

Not true. This is where he would be better suited, actually. Theists who accept evolution accept it in the form of Intelligent Design. Biology is precisely the response to the claim that complexity requires a creator. Dawkins can, and does, show that the species who are not well suited to their environment, or are not "perfectly designed" suggest a random natural process and not a guided process.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 9:50:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 5:18:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
David Icke

vs.

William Lane Craig
Frank Turek
Paul Washer

David Icke is a wackjob conspiracy theorist who believes that Reptilian shape-shifters are taking over the world. Id object to him, above Dawkins.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 9:55:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Atheists:

1. Quentin Smith
2. Michael Martin
3. Daniel C Dennett or Paul Draper (torn between the two)

Theists:

Alvin Plantinga
William Lane Craig
Richard Swirnburne (though he is more of a pale deist)

Top dollars for this debate

Who would you guys choose for the moderator?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 12:29:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kleptin
JustcallmeTarzan
The Skeptic
Ragnar Rahl
theLwerd

vs.

Inquire Truth
Krfournier
Mongoose
Mongeese
Wjmelements
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 1:50:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/25/2009 9:50:10 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 11/22/2009 5:18:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
David Icke

vs.

William Lane Craig
Frank Turek
Paul Washer

David Icke is a wackjob conspiracy theorist who believes that Reptilian shape-shifters are taking over the world. Id object to him, above Dawkins.

David Icke can effectively dismantle religion better than just about anyone else. He's the one that showed me how religion is false.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 4:10:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 5:35:12 PM, Puck wrote:
Dawkins is argument fail outside of biology.

Agreed.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Apologician
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 5:23:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/25/2009 2:03:42 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/24/2009 11:51:27 PM, Apologician wrote:
Are you kidding me? Within academic circles, his writings are not taken seriously at all. He's simply a popularizer.

As for one example a fallacious argument, look at his "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit," his chief argument against God's existence. Firstly, it isn't even logically valid, so even if I grant the premises, the conclusion doesn't follow.

I would say it is logically valid, which is this: based on Occam's Razor, it is more probable that evolution occurred, rather than the "God hypothesis." This God would be much more complex than evolution's simplistic origins that increasingly became complex. He also asked, who designed the designer.

Second, in order to identify an explanation as the best, we need not have an explanation of the explanation.

Yes, I remember Lane Craig pointing this out in a video, and it was a sound argument. But you see, Carl Sagan already countered this. If we say that "who made God" is an unanswerable question, why not save a step, and say that "where did the Universe come from" is an unanswerable question. If we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the Universe has always existed.

So either way, God would be an unparsimonious and unnecessary addition that just complicates things further. It's not an answer.

Third, God is not a complex being. He's an unembodied mind, he has no parts, so how could be complex in the biological sense?

Lmao! How can you ascribe properties to something that hasn't been proven to exist, let alone observed? For example: I assert that alien unicorns exist, but people don't understand that they are not complex beings, they are invisible and very ill-tempered.

On the contrary though, I do require that when people argue for the existence God, that they clearly define what they mean. I'd rather that than simply asserting the very vague and meaningless word, "God." I need to know what it is that a person is arguing for, and "God" is not sufficient enough.

It is not logically valid in the slightest. Argument validity is concerned with the structure of an argument, not the plausibility of the premises, which is argument soundness. Given the structure of his argument, the conclusion doesn't even follow. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Your second response really has nothing to do with Dawkins's argument anymore, since you conceded that Craig's argument was sound. This implies that Dawkins's argument rests on unsound premises since he assumes you need an explanation of the explanation for it to be considered good.

But, regarding your point about "Who made God" being an unanswerable question -- that is not how the theist responds. Instead, the question itself commits a category error, like asking "What does blue taste like?" God does not have the property of being caused. In regards to the universe, there are numerous lines of evidence which suggest that it began to exist (Which I'll cover in my debate with you later on)

Your third and final response is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand , and it doesn't even make sense. My point is that Dawkins's argument simply doesn't apply because God is not conceived of being a complex being (he is immaterial), meaning that he is attacking a strawman.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 6:53:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/25/2009 5:23:10 PM, Apologician wrote:
It is not logically valid in the slightest. Argument validity is concerned with the structure of an argument, not the plausibility of the premises, which is argument soundness. Given the structure of his argument, the conclusion doesn't even follow. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because of Richard Dawkins' accent, everything he says sounds logical and valid, therefore, it's valid. :P

What you call a conclusion, isn't really a conclusion. It's more of a related side argument. So it would be unfair to call it a non-sequitur.

Your second response really has nothing to do with Dawkins's argument anymore, since you conceded that Craig's argument was sound.

I did not concede it. Craig argued that the explanation doesn't require an explanation. That's true, except he himself doesn't follow that logic. The Big Bang is the explanation for our Universe, and he's trying to explain the explanation by inserting God.

This implies that Dawkins's argument rests on unsound premises since he assumes you need an explanation of the explanation for it to be considered good.

Again, I explained how that's not true. His point was that the explanation (God) must be so incredibly complex, that it would be the least parsimonious of the two options (God or Evolution). That is a sound argument. His side argument did seem to commit the explanation of the explanation argument, but the way he used it was sound. He didn't require that there be an explanation for the explanation, he was saying that the explanation (God) would be so incredibly complex, that whatever explains God would be incredibly complex and unparsimonious. So there is no sign of an unsound argument.

But, regarding your point about "Who made God" being an unanswerable question -- that is not how the theist responds. Instead, the question itself commits a category error, like asking "What does blue taste like?" God does not have the property of being caused. In regards to the universe, there are numerous lines of evidence which suggest that it began to exist (Which I'll cover in my debate with you later on)

Sorry, I misquoted Carl Sagan. He didn't say "who made God," he said "where did God come from." You say that God does not have the property of being caused, yet why can't you apply that same logic to the Universe? Why can't the Universe also be absent of the property of being caused? This is basically what Carl Sagan's argument was, and it's a sound one at that.

God is just an unnecessary addition. All the eternal, uncaused properties of God, should instead be applied to the Universe.

Your third and final response is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand , and it doesn't even make sense.

It was relevant. You said, "God is not a complex being. He's an unembodied mind, he has no parts, so how could be complex in the biological sense?"

My point was that, how can you even claim that? What gives you the right to say God is not complex, yet Dawkins doesn't have the right to say that God is complex?

You're saying, "Only I can describe God. Dawkins has no right to describe God." The fact is, neither of you have observed God, but Dawkins' assumption that he's complex, is grounded in reason rather than assertion.

My point is that Dawkins's argument simply doesn't apply because God is not conceived of being a complex being (he is immaterial), meaning that he is attacking a strawman.

Again, who decides these properties? If we're talking about the Christian God, only the Bible has a right to describe the Biblical God. Any other description would not be in support of a Christian God. So this is not a strawman at all. Both sides are assuming properties of something they've never seen.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat