Christianity vs. atheism

[Gregory]

Hello,

I would be interested in a debate on either the subject of Jesus' resurrection or God's existence. I am fairly new to the IIDF, so forgive me if these topics do not seem new or exciting.

I would take the position that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead or that God does exist. I am open to suggestions for narrowing the debate or establishing boundaries. I would, however, like to have a thorough discussion of the topic since it seems that either I am in error, or those with opposing views are mistaken. Either way, the consequences of wrong belief are disastrous (a life wasted on a foolish belief for me or an eternity separated from God for others).

I apologize to the moderators and creators of the IIDF if I have not posted this challenge correctly. Please feel free to email me with any instruction.

Thanks,

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Gregory
Hello,

I would be interested in a debate on either the subject of Jesus' resurrection or God's existence. I am fairly new to the IIDF, so forgive me if these topics do not seem new or exciting.

I would take the position that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead or that God does exist. I am open to suggestions for narrowing the debate or establishing boundaries. I would, however, like to have a thorough discussion of the topic since it seems that either I am in error, or those with opposing views are mistaken. Either way, the consequences of wrong belief are disastrous (a life wasted on a foolish belief for me or an eternity separated from God for others).

I apologize to the moderators and creators of the IIDF if I have not posted this challenge correctly. Please feel free to email me with any instruction.

Thanks,

Gregory

Hello Gregory,

No need to apologize! :) You've found the right place to debate these issues. It probably won't be too long until someone comes to pick up your gauntlet.

I recommend looking at Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978) and Debate format suggestions (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60770) if you haven't done so already. Someone like Peter Kirby would be an ideal opponent on the resurrection issue and someone like Clutch would be great for an existence of God debate.

Enjoy your stay. :D

Nightshade, FD Moderator

[Silent Dave]

Welcome aboard, Gregory.

While waiting for someone to accept your challenge, feel free to look around the site and familiarize yourself with posting and the link. Pop into The Lounge and introduce yourself, or hang out in Existence of God(s) or Biblical Criticism, which seem suited to your interests (you may also want to subtly advertise your challenge in those fora ;)).


Dave

[Peter Kirby]

I would be willing to a debate and suggest these terms.

(a) The topic of the debate.

Resolved: Historically, it is very probable that the physical body of Jesus came back to life three days after his execution.

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Gregory will take the affirmative stance. Peter Kirby doesn't have the burden of proof.

(c) The scope of the debate.

Would you like to put in any presuppositions that we would share prior to starting the debate? I would suggest three: (1) A man named Jesus was executed under Pilate. (2) The Gospel of Mark was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke. (3) The apostle Paul wrote at least seven of the NT letters. You can veto these or make your own suggestions.

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).

Six rounds, total of 12 posts combined.

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

In turns. Gregory will go first. I go last.

(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement).

The maximum length is 5000 words, including all quotations, etc.

(g) The maximum duration between statements.

The maximum duration is 10 days from the time that the other debate participant posts.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed).

Anything staying within the law, so long as quotes are cited with author name, title, and page numbers.

(i) The starting date of the debate.

Sunday, September 14, 2003, or such time that Gregory would prefer.

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

None that I can think of.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Gregory]

Dear Peter Kirby,

Thank you for responding to my challenge. I look forward to exchanging ideas with you. Before I address your suggested guidelines, however, I had an idea I wanted to run by you.

Although it may be rather ambitious, what would you say to a two-part debate? The first part would be on the existence of God and the second would be on the ressurection of Jesus. We could do 5 rounds for each topic. I would be willing to go first in both and give you the final word.

Let me know if this sounds desirable or even feasible. After you respond to this idea, I'll comment on the terms you suggested. I don't want to bother now if we end up expanding the debate.

Thanks. Hope to hear from you soon.

Gregory

p.s. sorry it took me so long to respond-I just started a new job

[Peter Kirby]

I would like to leave the debate over the existence of god(s) to another atheist. I would prefer to be a participant in a debate over the resurrection of Jesus, as that wouldn't be so far from the kind of research I am already engaged in. It's a matter of using my time, proficiency, and interests in the most efficient way. If you like, you can debate theism/atheism with another person and then start a debate with me over the supposed resurrection.

best,
Peter Kirby

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Gregory,

I agree with Peter. I'd prefer to keep it to one debate and one topic at a time. Of course, you're welcome to declare another debate challenge on the existence of God after you've finished your resurrection debate with Peter (or if you want, debate the EoG with with someone else first before debating Peter on the resurrection).

So if you would like to debate Peter first, then do you agree with most of his suggested parameters? Are there any more amendments you wish to make? I'd like to remind both of you of the Suggested debate formats (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60770) thread in case you'd like to try something other than the standard format.

Jason

[Gregory]

Hello friends,

Agreed. Perhaps I can debate someone else when we are finished.

I have a few questions/comments about your suggested guidelines.

1) I am assuming that since one of your presuppositions is that "Jesus was executed under Pilate", then I do not have to bother establishing that Jesus existed or that He did not die (as opposed to any swoon or body-double theory). Please let me know if this assumption is incorrect.

2) Could you please elaborate on the statement that the Gospel of Mark was "used" by the writers of Matthew and Luke. The extent to which you are using the term may prove important as the debate progresses.

3) Could you also please identify the seven NT epistles you believe have Pauline authorship, and which letters you reject that are traditionally accredited to him.

In regards to the topic of the debate, I think some clarification is needed. Since I am going to be affirming the position that, historically, it is "very probable" that Jesus came back from the dead, it is important for me to know on what grouds you would deem a historical event "very probable" as opposed to "probable" or "not very probable". For example, do you have any metaphysical, epistemological, axiological, or methodological objections to objective history that should be addressed now?

Other than these, everything else was fine by me. Other than the starting date, of course. What would you say to setting the opening statement at one week after we finalize the parameters?

Thanks,

Gregory

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Gregory
Hello friends,

Agreed. Perhaps I can debate someone else when we are finished.

I have a few questions/comments about your suggested guidelines.

1) I am assuming that since one of your presuppositions is that "Jesus was executed under Pilate", then I do not have to bother establishing that Jesus existed or that He did not die (as opposed to any swoon or body-double theory). Please let me know if this assumption is incorrect. This debate will not center around whether an underlying historical Jesus existed. It will center around the aftermath of the execution of a man named Jesus under Pilate, such being accepted by both participants as being probable, at least for the duration of the debate. As for whether the execution was fatal, that will be settled during the debate and not before.

is Jesus often carries connotations of divinity, etc., that I don't grant...as perhaps indicated by your use of the capital H. I do not grant that He existed with a capital H.]

2) Could you please elaborate on the statement that the Gospel of Mark was "used" by the writers of Matthew and Luke. The extent to which you are using the term may prove important as the debate progresses. The writers of Matthew and Luke had copies of GMark and referred to the Gospel of Mark for most of the triple tradition material, although they may have heard of some items from other sources as well.

3) Could you also please identify the seven NT epistles you believe have Pauline authorship, and which letters you reject that are traditionally accredited to him.

Although some may be composite (particularly 2 Cor and Phil) or contain interpolations (notably 1 Cor 15:3-11 as put forward by Bob Price [not that you or I have to agree with that (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html)]), the seven generally accepted Pauline epistles are Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

The two epistles where critical opinion has see-sawed back and forth are 2 Thessalonians and Colossians.

Epistles that are more definitely denied to Paul include the Epistle to the Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Note that the presupposition granted here is solely for your benefit. We are stipulating that seven are basically authentic, not that the other ten are necessarily inauthentic. You might use more letters as though from Paul if you argued first for their authenticity.

In regards to the topic of the debate, I think some clarification is needed. Since I am going to be affirming the position that, historically, it is "very probable" that Jesus came back from the dead, it is important for me to know on what grouds you would deem a historical event "very probable" as opposed to "probable" or "not very probable". For example, do you have any metaphysical, epistemological, axiological, or methodological objections to objective history that should be addressed now? Objections to objective history? I have been described as a naïve realist.

My understanding of historical probability is bound up with inductive reasoning. You may refer to this web page for some background:

Naturalistic Inquiry (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/naturalistic_inquiry.html)

Other than these, everything else was fine by me. Other than the starting date, of course. What would you say to setting the opening statement at one week after we finalize the parameters?[/B] The debate will start when you make the initial post. (You might want to drop me an e-mail when you do so.)

best,
Peter Kirby

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Just to make it offical, here are the debate parameters again:

(a) The topic of the debate:

Resolved: Historically, it is very probable that the physical body of Jesus came back to life three days after his execution.

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Gregory will take the affirmative stance. Peter Kirby doesn't have the burden of proof.

(c) The scope of the debate:

The formal debate includes the following presuppostions: (1) A man named Jesus was executed under Pilate. (2) The Gospel of Mark was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke. (3) The apostle Paul wrote at least seven of the NT letters.

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).

Six rounds.

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

In turns. Gregory will go first.

(f) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words.

(g) The maximum duration between statements:

10 days.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted:

Anything staying within the law, so long as quotes are cited with author name, title, and page numbers.

(i) The starting date of the debate:

???

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

None. Standard debate format will be used.


Gregory, do you agree with all these parameters (esp. the scope)? Any further amendments you wish to make? Would you still like to start a week after you've agreed to the parameters?


Jason

[Gregory]

Dear Peter/Nightshade,

I am sorry for how long it has taken me to reply. I am still interested in a debate; however, while going over the debate parameters, I began to wonder if there are some theological and epistemological differences that would make a debate on this topic almost impossible (in that it would be hard to come to any conclusions). I am still working through this, however, and I thank you for your patience and willingness to debate at all.

Perhaps, Peter, I could email you when I've finished, and then we could go from there. What do you think?

Sorry again. I'll try to be more diligent in the future.

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Welcome back Gregory, :)

Unfortunately, Peter is away for an indefinite time. Though perhaps someone else might be interested in taking up your debate challenge (on either the existence of God or the resurrection). We would have to revise the parameters in that case.

I would recommend subtly mentioning your challenge in one of the threads in Existence of God(s) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=59) or Biblical Criticism and History (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=60) so more people are aware of it.

Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Assuming that Peter Kirby will remain away, would anyone else like to pick up the gauntlet to Gregory's challenge on the existence of God or the alleged resurrection of Christ?

Gregory, if I could make a suggestion, participating in the Biblical Criticism & History (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=60) and/or Existence of God(s) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=59) forums would help boost your profile a little. Some people like to get a feel for where you're coming from, who you are, and your position before jumping into formal debates with you.

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Gregory
I would be interested in a debate on either the subject of Jesus' resurrection or God's existence.

I'm happy to argue for atheism. You can see my position in my Faith of a Pawnbroker (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44372) speech.

crc

[Gregory]

Hi Wiploc.

Thanks for picking up the challenge. Based on what I've read on some of your posts, you seem to be interested in more general discussions/debates about God's existence as opposed to Biblical criticism. Am I right? That's fine with me.

Maybe you could get the ball rolling with some suggested parameters. I'll begin thinking about some ideas as well. I'll also start to check the IIDB more often since I know that you have responded.

Thanks,

Gregory

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Gregory
Based on what I've read on some of your posts, you seem to be interested in more general discussions/debates about God's existence as opposed to Biblical criticism. Am I right? That's fine with me.

I think that's right. I mean I think that's my normal territory. I've never read the bible. But I've seen enough to take the position that it can't be right because it's shot thru with contradictions, and it can't be authoritative because people have to do so much interpretation to harmonize the contradictions that they end up reading whatever they want to believe into it. (I sometimes bait people with this line: "If the bible says there were 20,000 men in one verse, and 200,000 men in another, that's an error of 180,000 men. Why is an error of 180,000 men insignificant? Does that mean we are supposed to believe that Mary was a virgin, plus or minus 180,000 men?")

In other words, I am a "threshold level" bible scholar, who could be led deeper in. If you base your argument for the existence of god on the bible, then this stuff is going to come up. It's even more likely to come up on the resurrection of Jesus topic, since we have no reason to believe in Jesus outside the bible, and darn little inside it.

I think it probable that Jesus existed. That's because I don't see why they would tell that awkward story about having to go to Bethlehem for the census if they weren't trying to accommodate a real person to a legend. As in, "How are we going to convince people Jesus is from Bethlehem when everybody knows he's from Galilee?"



Maybe you could get the ball rolling with some suggested parameters. I'll begin thinking about some ideas as well. I'll also start to check the IIDB more often since I know that you have responded.

Thanks,

Gregory

On the existence of god, you would have the affirmative, right? So if you will sketch in the reasons that you believe in god, then I will either sketch in why I find them uncompelling or convert to Christianity. (Assuming Christianity is where you're coming from.)

As for parameters, the one week 2500 word limits would be fine with me if they would suit you.

crc

[Vinnie]

This one still up for grabs?

Vinnie

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Vinnie
This one still up for grabs?

Vinnie

As far as I know, yes.
crc

[Vinnie]

I am a theist. But I do not believe the evidence allows us to say that Jesus rose from the dead. I would be willing to take up that position.

Vinnie

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Vinnie
I am a theist. But I do not believe the evidence allows us to say that Jesus rose from the dead. I would be willing to take up that position.

Vinnie

Hi Vinnie,

I haven't seen Gregory post here for quite a while. He may have lost interest following this thread. :(

Nevertheless, we'd be happy to see a "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" formal debate. I'd recommend starting a new thread here and issue a challenge. Perhaps someone like Layman or Bede could debate you (assuming they take the opposing position -- sorry I don't follow BC&H that often).

Jason

[Gregory]

Hello friends,

Wow. It's been almost two months since I have responded. Let me first say how sorry I am. I hate to use the holidays as an excuse, but I have been out of town a bit and quite busy with family.

Anyway. I have some ideas for the debate, Wiploc, if you are still interested. Now that the holidays are over, I can devote more time to checking the IIDB for your response.

1) I find that it is better to debate a question rather than a proposition in a debate on God's existence. If we simply debated the question, "Does God exist?" then neither would have the benefit of appealing to atheism or theism as the default belief in light of less-than-compelling arguments.

2) I suggest the following form. We would do ten rounds broken up into two parts. In part 1, I would make and defend a claim like, "It is rational to believe that God exists." I would go first, then the next four rounds would be you(respond), me(defend), you(respond), and finally me(conclude). Part 2 would basically be the same except our roles would be reversed. You would make a claim like, "It is not rational to believe that God exists." Then you would have to defend that claim.

3) We would have one week to respond to the last post. The posts will be no more than 2500 words.

If this all looks good to you, than I am ready to start when you are. Just let me know of any changes or things I am missing and when you want to start.

You may want to drop me an email when your'e ready.

Thanks. Looking forward to the debate,

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Welcome back again, Gregory. :)

Looks good to me. :) But I just wanted to note again that debate proposal parameters must satisfy the following criteria:

From Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978):

(a) The topic of the debate.

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

(c) The scope of the debate.

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations).

(g) The maximum duration between statements.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted.

(i) The starting date of the debate.

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

Originally posted by Gregory
2) I suggest the following form. We would do ten rounds broken up into two parts. In part 1, I would make and defend a claim like, "It is rational to believe that God exists." I would go first, then the next four rounds would be you(respond), me(defend), you(respond), and finally me(conclude). Part 2 would basically be the same except our roles would be reversed. You would make a claim like, "It is not rational to believe that God exists." Then you would have to defend that claim.

Assuming that the proposed debate is to be an open ended philosophical debate, then (c) is perhaps satisfied. As for (d), note that there are 2 statements in a round (with exception perhaps of the 5th concluding statements per set). I'd also recommend a final round to summarize the whole debate. Here's what I assume the debate will look like:

Set 1:

Round 1: Gregory affirms, wiploc rebuts
Round 2: Gregory defends, wiploc rebuts
Round 3: Gregory concludes

Set 2:

Round 1: wiploc affirms, Gregory rebuts
Round 2: wiploc defends, Gregory rebuts
Round 3: wiploc concludes

Final Round: Gregory makes overall concluding statement, wiploc makes overall concluding statement [assuming you guys would like a final summarizing round]

I would also need the parameters (h) and (i) addressed as well. :)

Anyways, wiploc may wish to make amendments to your proposed parameters assuming he's still interested in a formal debate.

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Gregory
1) I find that it is better to debate a question rather than a proposition in a debate on God's existence. If we simply debated the question, "Does God exist?" then neither would have the benefit of appealing to atheism or theism as the default belief in light of less-than-compelling arguments.

I don't mind having the benefit of getting to argue the negative position. In fact, I don't see how I can refute your position until you say what it is. And even then there may not be anything to refute unless your position is that there is good reason to believe in god: belief in god(s) is more reasonable than disbelief.

Is this your position? If so, how do you support it?

I'd rather not agree to a debate before I know what it is about. I wouldn't like to find I'm expected to refute, say, the existence of the Pharaohs.




2) I suggest the following form. We would do ten rounds broken up into two parts. In part 1, I would make and defend a claim like, "It is rational to believe that God exists."

I'd like to know what your actual claim is going to be, and how you propose to support it.



I would go first, then the next four rounds would be you(respond), me(defend), you(respond), and finally me(conclude). Part 2 would basically be the same except our roles would be reversed. You would make a claim like, "It is not rational to believe that God exists." Then you would have to defend that claim.

Maybe I'll understand better when I hear your claim, but right now I don't see the point of shifting the burden of proof in the middle of the debate. When I understand what position you want to argue, I may be able to come up with an affirmative claim of my own for you to try to refute. But I won't know before that.

crc

[wiploc]

Gregory, are you still with us?

crc

[Silent Dave]

You may want to drop him an email.


Dave

[Gregory]

Nightshade,

I like you proposed debate format. I especially like the concluding round idea.

About h and i:

H) I am not opposed to quotes from outside sources;however, I would like to limit it for the sake of the debate. I would just like to avoid us having a cut-and-paste contest. I will probably not use very many outside quotes, unless the person speaking is relevent to the point, simply because I would rather focus on the truth of a statement as opposed to who says it. So, I guess I would allow Wiploc to use whatever quotes he would like as long as it does not get out of hand.

I) I suggest Feb 1st as the date of the first posts. That would give us both some time to polish our arguments and it would also allow me to finish some other projects I am working on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiploc,

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last post. Sorry for any confusion. Basically, what this would be is two debates in one. Instead of me making the claim that God exists and then you challenging that (thus putting the burden of proof on me), or you making the claim that God does not exist and then me challenging that claim (thus putting the burden of proof on you), we would both make claims to the open question: Does God exist? Then, after the debate, we and those following along can judge which view stands out as the most probable.

I think this format is superior to others for two important reasons. Most importantly, it allows us to cover a larger territory in the question of God's existence, which will be of benefit both to us and those viewing the debate. In addition, it seems the most balanced way to approach the question. We both share the burden of showing why our worldview is superior.

My claim will simply be that theism, specifically Christianity, is more probable than atheism. I will support this claim with various arguments from philosophy, science, mathematics, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience.

I hope this makes things clearer. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks,

Gregory

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Gregory
About h and i:

H) I am not opposed to quotes from outside sources;however, I would like to limit it for the sake of the debate. I would just like to avoid us having a cut-and-paste contest. I will probably not use very many outside quotes, unless the person speaking is relevent to the point, simply because I would rather focus on the truth of a statement as opposed to who says it. So, I guess I would allow Wiploc to use whatever quotes he would like as long as it does not get out of hand.

Fine with me. I don't quote much. Occasionally I paraphrase Plantinga or Craig. And if you use the bible as an authority, I'll likely quote some scriptural contradictions.



I) I suggest Feb 1st as the date of the first posts.

I'd just as soon start now, as soon as your first post is ready.



That would give us both some time to polish our arguments

Until I see your case, I can't possibly have a response to polish.



and it would also allow me to finish some other projects I am working on.

You've already established a pattern of disappearing for weeks at a time. Works for me. If you get tangled up in other projects, so be it. We can either set ridiculously long turns, or exercise plentiful forgiveness.

I don't know when I will go on the road and have my internet connections become ... unreliable. I don't know how to get on the internet on the road. Last time, I didn't manage it at all. So, for you, the reliable time is later rather than sooner, and for me it is sooner rather than later. That's fine with me as long as nobody is going to be pissy about deadlines.


Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last post. Sorry for any confusion. Basically, what this would be is two debates in one. Instead of me making the claim that God exists and then you challenging that (thus putting the burden of proof on me), or you making the claim that God does not exist and then me challenging that claim (thus putting the burden of proof on you), we would both make claims to the open question: Does God exist? Then, after the debate, we and those following along can judge which view stands out as the most probable.

I don't see any way to turn my case into an affirmative. My position is that whatever you argue is wrong. Of course, I haven't seen what you argue, so maybe I'll wind up agreeing with you.

If I were to try to build an affirmative atheist case, I'd do well to pick some obscure but easily refutable god, right? It would be a straw man.

So it seems to me that you should make your case as best you can, and I should do my best to refute it. Your position can be that --- based on your arguments --- belief in the Christian god is more reasonable than atheism. I would expect to take (depending on what your arguments turn out to be) the position that your arguments are unpersuasive, that they leave non-belief at least as appealing as Christianity.

If it seems to you like that gives me an unfair advantage, we can say that the result will be a tie unless one of is able to make a case strong enough that it would persuade an ideal rational observer off of top dead center.

That could seem to give you the advantage, seeing as how I can't do that by merely refuting your arguments, but I don't mind. We don't have an ideal rational observer; so the likely result is that we will each wind up feeling victorious. Or maybe we will each secretly feel like we let our side down on some point, but totally disagree on which points they were.

In any case, I'll think I done good if I totally refute all of your arguments; and you'll think you done good if you make Christianity seem like a warranted belief; and it won't bother me at all if there is some area of overlap where we can both feel we done good.

On the other hand, if your case brings your god within the scope of the problem of evil, then I will endeavor to show that he cannot possibly exist. I'll be taking an affirmative position on that. But I don't see any reason at all to wait until the debate is half over before bringing out my big gun. I'd hate to be in the position of having to say, "Your argument is unpersuasive for reasons that I am not yet allowed to mention."




I think this format is superior to others for two important reasons. Most importantly, it allows us to cover a larger territory in the question of God's existence, which will be of benefit both to us and those viewing the debate. In addition, it seems the most balanced way to approach the question. We both share the burden of showing why our worldview is superior.

I think mine is superior, but I don't have much to say about that other than that Christians have never effectively made their case. And there is a lot of damage done in the world by people who promiscuously believe false religions on no better evidence than Christians have. (That was 49 words. I think I can fit it into my first statement rather than calling it an entire statement halfway thru the debate.)



My claim will simply be that theism, specifically Christianity, is more probable than atheism.

I'm happy to go with that if you want, but let me suggest that probability theory may not be what we are really after. Perhaps something like this would be better:

Christianity vs. Atheism: which is more reasonable?

Feel free to substitute, "logical," or, "makes more sense," or, "warranted by the evidence," or, "justifiable." This leaves open the possiblity of using probability theory in a supporting role.



I will support this claim with various arguments from philosophy, science, mathematics, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience.

Cool. I'm excited.



(a) The topic of the debate.

Christianity vs. Atheism: which is more logically justifiable?



(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Gregory for Christianity. Wiploc for Atheism.



(c) The scope of the debate.

As indicated by the title.


(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).

I'm flexible. Say, seven rounds?


(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Gregory first, then we take turns.


(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations).

Whatever Gregory said elsewhere.



(g) The maximum duration between statements.

Given your tendency to disappear, my hope that I'll get to disappear, and your other demands on your time, why don't we just set the interval at one month. Though greater rapididity will of course be appreciated.


(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted.

As Gregory said above, we just shouldn't go overboard.


(i) The starting date of the debate.

Boy, the very moment Gregory is ready to post. :)

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by wiploc
I'm happy to go with that if you want, but let me suggest that probability theory may not be what we are really after. Perhaps something like this would be better:

Christianity vs. Atheism: which is more reasonable?

If it's the case that the debate takes the standard format, with Gregory taking the affirmative while wiploc opposes, perhaps a title like this would be better:

"Is Christian theism true? -- Gregory vs. wiploc"

Originally posted by wiploc
(c) The scope of the debate.

As indicated by the title.


Actually, as Gregory mentioned, the scope would be "arguments from philosophy, science, mathematics, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience."

Originally posted by wiploc
(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations).

Whatever Gregory said elsewhere.

It was 2500 words per statement. Is that alright?

Originally posted by wiploc
(i) The starting date of the debate.

Boy, the very moment Gregory is ready to post. :)


It's up to you, Gregory, on the start date. Do you still prefer Feb. 1st?

As for the debate format, are you okay with wiploc's proposed amendments Gregory? If not, perhaps we could move towards some kind of compromise.

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Nightshade
If it's the case that the debate takes the standard format, with Gregory taking the affirmative while wiploc opposes, perhaps a title like this would be better:

"Is Christian theism true? -- Gregory vs. wiploc"


This works for me.



Actually, as Gregory mentioned, the scope would be "arguments from philosophy, science, mathematics, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience."

This works for me.



It was 2500 words per statement. Is that alright?

This works for me. If he is concise enough to do philosophy, science, math, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience in 2500 words, that's great!


Note to moderator: You guys do a great job.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by wiploc
This works for me. If he is concise enough to do philosophy, science, math, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience in 2500 words, that's great!


Note to moderator: You guys do a great job.


Thanks wiploc! :D And thanks to you for participating, keeping the action going in FDD. :) Here, have an Evil Atheist Conspiracy merit badge. ;)

Gregory, are you sure you're okay with 2500 words? If you feel you can make your case within that amount, then that's fine. Let us know if you think you need more.

If Gregory would not like to take the standard format, as wiploc proposed, here's my idea for a compromise. Perhaps we can use Gregory's format, but stick to a critique of Christian theism as opposed to wiploc advancing a positive case for atheism.

How about this? --

Set 1:

Round 1: Gregory affirms what he believes are the strongest arguments in favour of Christian theism; wiploc rebuts
Round 2: Gregory defends; wiploc rebuts
Round 3: Gregory concludes

Set 2:

Round 1: wiploc affirms what he believes are the strongest arguments against Christian theism; Gregory rebuts
Round 2: wiploc defends; Gregory rebuts
Round 3: wiploc concludes

Final Round: Gregory makes overall concluding statement; wiploc makes overall concluding statement.


Of course, if Gregory is okay with wiploc's proposal using a standard format, then we'll go with that instead. :)

Jason

[Silent Dave]

**steals Nightshade's rubber chicken for unauthorized distribution of EAC merit badge**


Dave

[wiploc]

Gregory, my debate with Long Winded Fool on the Problem of Evil has started. (It should be a short one: five rounds with four day turns.) Since I don't get to have two formal debates going at once, this one will have to either be postponed or handled over in EoG as an informal debate (an unmoderated debate that takes place in the same thread as the peanut gallery).

I'm happy to do it either way. If we go unmoderated, we'll have no word limits or time limits. All I'll ask is that we focus on each other, and keep coming back to respond to each other's points.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

wiploc and Gregory,

You guys are welcome to continue hammering out the parameters for your debate proposal. The only parameter that will have to wait will be the start date, until wiploc has finished his debate with long winded fool.

Jason

[Gregory]

Nightshade/Wiploc,

Glad to hear you are in another debate. Although, I'm not sure I would want to debate someone who calls himself Long Winded Fool. Anyway, I'd like to keep figuring out the details for our debate. I'm not real keen on a open discussion in the EofG forum mostly because it has the potential to get very congested with other people's comments. I think a structured debate that only we could post on would be easier for us and for those who want to follow the arguments.

As far as our debate goes, I have several comments/questions:

1) Nightshade- I'm not really sure why you changed Wiploc's question for the debate. It is basically what I have been asking for. If we say: Christianity vs. Atheism: Which is more reasonable?, then both Wiploc and I will have to put forth a positive case and be prepared to defend it. Wiploc- I understand why you would not know what to put forth as a case if I was simply saying that Christianity is true because you wold have to wait to refute my arguments. But, that is not the scope of the debate. This is the basic difference between debating a question vs. debating a proposition. Even if we debate the question: Is Christianity true?, you would still have to make a positive case for why it is not, which I would try to refute. You might try to use the argument from evil, or maybe that the idea of the Christian God is not coherent(which the argument from evil is basically a form of). So......

2) I suggest using the debate outline that Nightshade suggested, but with the debate question as Wiploc stated it. This is what I see....

Topic: Christianity vs. Atheism:Which is more reasonable?

Participants: Gregory for Christianity, Wiploc for Atheism

Rounds/Format:

1. Round 1- Gregory puts forth the best arguments he can for the superiority of Christianity.

2. Round 2- Wiploc attempts to refute these positive arguments. (the argument from evil would probably not be used here, but rather in Wiploc's 1st positive argument round- this would be the round where you would have to show that my arguments from Science, History, Philosophy, etc. are either not persuasive or just plain false)

3. Round 3- Gregory would try to answer Wiploc's objections.

4. Round 4- Wiploc would put forth the best arguments he can for the superiority of Atheism. (I know that this is the place you might be struggling with, so let me clarify. You may want to just focus on the PofE, and that would be fine, but that does not give any proof that the universe has always existed or that it arose spontaneously out of nothing or any other view that might be necessary in a naturalistic worldview. Perhaps you will see the need for more positive arguments after you read my arguments for Christianity.)

5. Round 5- Gregory would attempt to refute Wiploc's case.

6. Round 6- Wiploc would try to answer Gregory's objections.

7. Round 7- Both debaters would make conclusions and final appeals.

Length of Post: 5,000 word limit including quotes

Time between posts: I suggest a two week limit for each round as a compromise. This way, anyone following the debate won't get bored or forget.

Quotes: Within reason

Starting date: Feb 1st still works for me if your other debate will be over in time

3) Just a little side note. I also appreciate the time that you all put in here at the IIDB. I'm sure it takes quite a bit of time to run this site. I also want to thank you both, Nightshade and Wiploc, for being patient during this process of structuring the debate. Sometimes, it seems like it takes more work to organize a debate than to actually do it. But I cannot think of anything that is a better use of time than to discuss the question of God's existence. I think that is all I had to say. Hope this finds you all well!

Thanks,

Gregory

[wiploc]

Mods, I request a debate using the rules Gregory has just set out.

Gregory, if you finish your opening statement before the debate starts, you can PM it to me if you'd like. We may get a couple of rounds completed before we get to start publishing. :)

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Okay, let's do a summary here:

(a) The topic of the debate:

Christianity vs. Atheism: which is more reasonable?

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

Gregory for Christianity and wiploc for atheism.

(c) The scope of the debate:

Arguments from philosophy, science, mathematics, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience

(Given the scope, we may put the "Peanut Gallery" thread in GRD as opposed to EoG).

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

Special (see (j))

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

Special (see (j))

(f) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words.

(g) The maximum duration between statements.:

2 weeks.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted:

Quotes allowed but use within reason.

(i) The starting date of the debate:

To be decided after wiploc completes his debate with long winded fool.

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

Special format proposed:

Okay, it seems I got two versions proposed here. The one that Gregory proposed earlier was a little different.

Here's the first one:

Set 1:

Round 1: Gregory affirms his best arguments for Christianity; wiploc rebuts
Round 2: Gregory defends, wiploc rebuts
Round 3: Gregory concludes

Set 2:

Round 1: wiploc affirms his best arguments for atheism, Gregory rebuts
Round 2: wiploc defends, Gregory rebuts
Round 3: wiploc concludes

Final Round: Gregory makes overall concluding statement; wiploc makes overall concluding statement

And here's the second format:

Set 1:

Round 1: Gregory affirms his best arguments for Christianity; wiploc rebuts
Round 2: Gregory concludes

Set 2:

Round 1: wiploc affirms his best arguments for atheism, Gregory rebuts
Round 2: wiploc concludes

Final Round: Gregory makes overall concluding statement; wiploc makes overall concluding statement

The first format involves each of you making a total of 6 statements each. The second format means each of you make 4 statements each. Which format would you guys prefer?

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Nightshade
The first format involves each of you making a total of 6 statements each. The second format means each of you make 4 statements each. Which format would you guys prefer?

Jason

I'm flexible. If Gregory has no opinion, then I'll sugest the one where we each make six statements.

crc

[Gregory]

Nightshade/Wiploc,

The first format looks fine to me. But I am not sure I understand how the dates would work out. After I make my first post, does Wiploc have two weeks to rebut, and then I have another two weeks to begin round two? That seems like the debate would take an extremely long time, unless Wiploc makes his first positive post on the same day that I make mine, and then we both have two weeks to rebut, and so forth....

Could you (Nightshade) put the schedule in with mock dates assuming that the first post/s are made on Feb. 1?

Thanks,

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Gregory
Nightshade/Wiploc,

The first format looks fine to me. But I am not sure I understand how the dates would work out. After I make my first post, does Wiploc have two weeks to rebut, and then I have another two weeks to begin round two? That seems like the debate would take an extremely long time, unless Wiploc makes his first positive post on the same day that I make mine, and then we both have two weeks to rebut, and so forth....

Could you (Nightshade) put the schedule in with mock dates assuming that the first post/s are made on Feb. 1?


Hi Gregory,

If the start date for the debate was Feb. 1st, then you would be free to make your opening statement within 2 weeks of that date (i.e. Feb. 1st - 15th). Once your statement is made, wiploc then has 2 weeks to post a reply. How fast the debate goes depends on how quickly you and wiploc can write your responses to each other.

Anyways, I'd recommend looking at the FDD Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978) and some current formal debates (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978) to get an idea on how some work.

As for the proposed start date for your debate with wiploc, that will have to wait until he's finished his debate with long winded fool. They just started the 3rd round and have another 2 to go so it probably won't be too long.

Jason

[wiploc]

It turns out that I don't go on the road after all. I'm going back to school. So, aside from needing a break for spring break, I'll be happy to go with one week deadlines.

As for the length of my current debate, we may be just getting warmed up. We may need to add a couple of rounds. But, so far, all the posts have come in in less than four days, so it may still be a short debate.

crc

[Gregory]

Wiploc/Nightshade,

Okay. That sounds great. Since Wiploc doesn't have to go anywhere, then let's go ahead and just make the time limited to one week. I'm ready to go as soon as you're ready Wiploc, so just let me know when your other debate is over and when you want to start ours.

Thanks,

Gregory

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Gregory
Wiploc/Nightshade,

Okay. That sounds great. Since Wiploc doesn't have to go anywhere, then let's go ahead and just make the time limited to one week. I'm ready to go as soon as you're ready Wiploc, so just let me know when your other debate is over and when you want to start ours.

Thanks,

Gregory

Sounds good.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Just to summarize the parameters again:


(a) The topic of the debate:

Christianity vs. Atheism: which is more reasonable?

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

Gregory for Christianity and wiploc for atheism.

(c) The scope of the debate:

Arguments from philosophy, science, mathematics, history, archaeology, anthropology, and religious experience.

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

Special (see (j))

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

Special (see (j))

(f) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words

(g) The maximum duration between statements.:

1 week

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted:

Quotes allowed but use within reason.

(i) The starting date of the debate:

Pending (awaiting wiploc's debate with long winded fool to be complete)

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

Special format:

Set 1:

Round 1: Gregory affirms his best arguments for Christianity; wiploc rebuts
Round 2: Gregory defends; wiploc rebuts
Round 3: Gregory concludes

Set 2:

Round 1: wiploc affirms his best arguments for atheism; Gregory rebuts
Round 2: wiploc defends; Gregory rebuts
Round 3: wiploc concludes

Concluding Round: Gregory makes overall concluding statement; wiploc makes overall concluding statement


Gregory, you'll be notified via email when wiploc has finished his debate with long winded fool.

Jason

[wiploc]

I request a debate. My last post in my other debate has been submitted; my part in that debate is done.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by wiploc
I request a debate. My last post in my other debate has been submitted; my part in that debate is done.

crc

We just need to let Gregory know. Once he confirms that he's ready to start now, we'll set up the debate thread in FDD. I've sent Gregory an email so hopefully we'll hear from him soon.

Jason

[Gregory]

Nightshade/Wiploc,

I'm ready to go! I think we said Feb. 1st as the starting date, so I will plan on that. From what I understand, I will have from Feb. 1st to Feb. 8th to make the first post.

I'm looking forward to the debate. Just to let you know, Wiploc, I will make my comments directly to you since we are having the discussion. I think of this as just a conversation between us that others are able to see.

Talk to you soon,

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Okay, sounds good. :) We will set up the formal debate thread in FDD (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17) on Feb. 1st.

This thread will now be closed.

Gregory, if you'd like to set up another potential debate on the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" feel free to start another debate proposal thread (to set up the parameters, that is).

Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'm re-opening this thread for the moment. Gregory just posted in the FDD debate thread:

Nightshade/Wiploc,

First let me say that I am sorry for missing the first deadline. It has been a very hectic last two weeks for me. Anyway, for some reason, my computer at work would not apply my post to the website. At least, I think it was my computer. Consequently, I was unable to inform you.

Wiploc, I can see that you are trying to start another debate. I do not want to keep you from being able to participate, but I would still like to do our debate. If you are willing, and if my computer will cooperate, perhaps we could start this Saturday (Feb. 14) with my first post. Thanks for being so patient.

Gregory


Gregory, I noticed that you attempted to post several times in the FDD thread. Please keep in mind that FDD is a fully moderated forum and posts made there are invisible until they are validated by a moderator. That's why your posts didn't show.

Anyways, only formal debate statements are permitted in the FDD thread so I copied and pasted one of your posts above. Gregory, keep in mind that you can also use the email and private message options to contact us.

At this point, I'll leave it up to wiploc on what he'd like to do:

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Nightshade
At this point, I'll leave it up to wiploc on what he'd like to do:

Jason

Okay, Saturday it is.
crc

[Gregory]

Nightshade/Wiploc,

Thanks for being understanding! I will put my first post up on Saturday. Or else I would probably be too ashamed to ever post on the IIDB again.

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Gregory
Nightshade/Wiploc,

Thanks for being understanding! I will put my first post up on Saturday. Or else I would probably be too ashamed to ever post on the IIDB again.

Gregory

No worries, Gregory. We like to be flexible about such things. We only ask that you notify us when things get problematic.

As the rules permit, you can make your opening statement from Feb. 14 to Feb. 21.

This thread will now be closed again.

Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

wiploc has requested that the parameters of the debate in progress be amended. I've re-opened this thread to allow him to state his case.

Jason

[wiploc]

The first point I need to make is that I have been misreading the format. The agreed format is that we both post in rounds one and two of set one. That means that if you introduce new arguments now, I will still have one chance to address them in set one.

I intend to conform myself to your movements, meaning that if you don't introduce new arguments in round two of set one, I intend not to introduce new arguments in round two of set two. But sometimes I'm sloppy about such things, and I don't mind if you are too.

I think you should introduce new arguments. If there are reasons to believe in the Jesus story, I'd like to hear them. I don't think we should let the format agreements get in our way.

If you want me to, I'll introduce arguments for atheism in my next post so that you'll have more time to refute them.

Or, we can try to stick to the agreed format. Whatever you want to do will be fine.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

wiploc,

If Gregory agrees to make amendments, do you want to use a standard format (much like your debate with seebs and long winded fool)? If so, how many rounds?

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Nightshade
wiploc,

If Gregory agrees to make amendments, do you want to use a standard format (much like your debate with seebs and long winded fool)? If so, how many rounds?

Jason

The original format called for twelve posts (six from each of us), so six rounds would be fine.

crc

[Gregory]

Hi guys,

Let me first say that I actually agree with what Wiploc wrote in his response regarding bringing up new arguments. I will not bring up any new arguments during the course of the debate, I'll just defend the ones I've already made. Since we have already started the debate this way, we might as well finish it.

The only reason I considered bringing in new arguments is that there was so much that I wanted to put in the original post. Then, I began to wonder if it was a good idea to put a great deal of information in the opening. I did not want to throw out 20 arguments that you could not possibly have time to respond to, or to make the post so long that people would just get bored from reading it and consequently miss out on any of it.

In retrospect, however, I probably should have just stuck to a few good arguments and developed them more fully in the opening post, that way we would have more time to discuss them. Anyway, I suggest we just continue like this for the remainder. I will post my second statement in a day or two.

Thanks,

Gregory

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Thanks Gregory & wiploc,

We'll amend the parameters so that each debater will not present new arguments after the opening or affirming statement from each set. Gregory, since you plan to post your response within a few days, we'll keep the deadline as it is.

This thread will be closed again.

Jason