Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Looking for an opponent

Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:18:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I figured I might as well make a topic instead of creating an open challenge. Here are the topics I'm willing to debate:

-Pro: The Kalam Cosmological Argument
-Pro: The Thomistic Cosmological Argument
-Pro: The Moral Argument
-Pro: The Teleological Argument
-Con: Same-Sex Marriage

The burden of proof for all of these will be shared (ie: Pro must prove argument X to be probably sound, Con must prove argument X to be probably unsound).
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:22:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm going to bed now, but if you're interested at all just post and I'll get back to you in the afternoon. Also, I would prefer to debate someone who considers himself/herself a former Christian, although that's not an important priority of mine.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:32:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, I'm not really interested in debating the ontological argument right, just the ones I listed (Though you're still free to suggest other topics).

The teleological argument basically argues to the existence of a supreme intellect (ie: God) based on the presence of design (be it biological, causal, etc...).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:35:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:30:14 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Can you explain the teleological argument?

1. It's not likely that the universe would be created such that there are planets that can sustain human life.
2. Since it really isn't likely, there must have been something weighting the odds.
3. The best explanation is that God tweaked things so life on earth could happen.

Douglas Adams famously mocks this with the story from the perspective of a puddle. The puddle marvels at how the dirt around it is indented perfectly for the puddle's shape. The dirt , the puddle concludes, must have been made to specifically contain the puddle.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 2:47:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:18:31 AM, Contradiction wrote:
I figured I might as well make a topic instead of creating an open challenge. Here are the topics I'm willing to debate:

-Pro: The Kalam Cosmological Argument
-Pro: The Thomistic Cosmological Argument
-Pro: The Moral Argument
-Pro: The Teleological Argument
-Con: Same-Sex Marriage

The burden of proof for all of these will be shared (ie: Pro must prove argument X to be probably sound, Con must prove argument X to be probably unsound).

I am up for debating Kalam.

I don't know about your burden of proof rule.

I can't prove that invisible aliens that abduct and clone humans don't exist, but I don't have to prove they they don't exist, its enough to show their is insufficient warrant to come to that conclusion in order to have justified non belief.

This is the standard I would use to defeat the conclusion therefore God exists. Is this standard ok with you ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 3:20:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:18:31 AM, Contradiction wrote:
I figured I might as well make a topic instead of creating an open challenge. Here are the topics I'm willing to debate:

-Pro: The Kalam Cosmological Argument
-Pro: The Thomistic Cosmological Argument
-Pro: The Moral Argument
-Pro: The Teleological Argument
-Con: Same-Sex Marriage

The burden of proof for all of these will be shared (ie: Pro must prove argument X to be probably sound, Con must prove argument X to be probably unsound).

I would take any of the last three. Though for the moral argument, I would probably want to know if you are arguing from a Christian framework, but that's isn't what the issue turns on.

Cosmological arguments IMO cannot establish that a specific God exists, and they usually also make an unwarranted leap from "cause" to "god."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 10:57:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is thomistic the one centered around all things that are caused have teleos/function?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 11:08:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll take the Moral Arguement. Plus I'm a former Christian.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:26:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 10:57:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Is thomistic the one centered around all things that are caused have teleos/function?

That's the fifth way. The first, second, and third ways are variations of the cosmological argument.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:27:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 11:08:42 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'll take the Moral Arguement. Plus I'm a former Christian.

Sounds good, I'll make note of that. I'll see who else is interested.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:32:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:27:20 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 9/21/2011 11:08:42 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'll take the Moral Arguement. Plus I'm a former Christian.

Sounds good, I'll make note of that. I'll see who else is interested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the KCA?
A.Whatever begins to exist has cause
B. The universe began to exit
C. The universe has a cause.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:42:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:32:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/21/2011 1:27:20 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 9/21/2011 11:08:42 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'll take the Moral Arguement. Plus I'm a former Christian.

Sounds good, I'll make note of that. I'll see who else is interested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the KCA?
A.Whatever begins to exist has cause
How do you know that? You don't know for sure that everything that began to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist without a cause, so the first statement is false.
B. The universe began to exit
C. The universe has a cause.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 2:06:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:56:12 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Yes that's the KCA.

I think P1 is obviously true, but here's not the place to debate it.

Not exactly, the KCA adds more than just the 2 premises and conclusion does it not ?

After making the argument for a first cause it argues that the first cause has certain things about it, timeless, uncased, personal, ergo God.

I want to debate both the KCA (2 premises and its conclusion) as well as its arguments that the first cause is "God". I have objections in both area's.

Whaddya say contradiction ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 1:09:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll play devil's advocate on the kca and I promise not to suck at it. ;)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:48:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thanks for the feedback everyone. As it stands, it looks I'll be debating SP first, then Danielle at a later date.

I'll have the challenge up... soon.