seebs
October 14, 2003, 11:14 PM
In this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1218969#post1218969), Koyaanisqatsi offered an argument against the existence of God. This was a bit of a digression from the topic of the thread, so it is perhaps unsurprising that he hasn't been back to defend it further.
In the hopes of following up on these claims, without derailing any other threads, I propose a formal debate on it.
(a) The topic of the debate.
Resolved, that Koyaanisqatsi's argument, enclosed herein, is not sound.
(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
I would argue the positive, Koyaanisqatsi would argue the negative.
(c) The scope of the debate.
The soundness of the following argument, and no other. The question is not a general one about all the many EoG arguments, but about this particular argument:
Koyaanisqatsi's argument:
And you seemed to have missed the irrefutable paradox that if such a god exists, it would prove (irrefutably) the objective truth of my claims, all of which would necessarily be true.
Posting (as you do) that a god exists axiomatically establishes that objective reality is an irrefutable fact. If that is true, then there can exist nothing subjectively "true," yes? Everything would be objectively true, according to that standard.
Thus, the presupposition of the god concept axiomatically establishes an objective reality and, indirectly, negates the notion that any aspect of "reality" can be subjectively interpreted.
If that were the case, then there would be no effective purpose to positing a god to begin with, yes? If everything is subjective, then the objective establishment of a god's existence is rendered utterly pointless.
Argue subjectivity and you deny a god's existence. Period. Argue objectivity, and you affirm rationals of logic and science.
Your choice. Argue subjectivity and you prove conclusively the non-existence of god. Argue objectivity and you prove conclusively that the natural "world' exists without need of a god and therefore mandates what it is we learn from it.
Either way you slice it, you prove that a mystical fairy god-king like being, magically "willing" the universe and humanity into existence is not just absurd, but logically unsound.
(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).
I think three rounds should be enough; if we want to keep arguing past that, we could of course start a regular thread.
(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
Turns, and Koyaanisqatsi obviously goes first, as he is the one who has an argument to advance.
(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement).
I'd like to suggest a limit of about 1500 words per statement. This is a small topic.
(g) The maximum duration between statements.
Three days or so? Once again, it's not a big topic.
(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed).
How about "no sources except dictionaries", to avoid an endless quoting festival.
(i) The starting date of the debate.
I can start whenever, but I might need to plead for extensions once or twice if the debate overlaps with my upcoming standards meeting.
(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).
I don't see an immediate need for extra rules.
In the hopes of following up on these claims, without derailing any other threads, I propose a formal debate on it.
(a) The topic of the debate.
Resolved, that Koyaanisqatsi's argument, enclosed herein, is not sound.
(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
I would argue the positive, Koyaanisqatsi would argue the negative.
(c) The scope of the debate.
The soundness of the following argument, and no other. The question is not a general one about all the many EoG arguments, but about this particular argument:
Koyaanisqatsi's argument:
And you seemed to have missed the irrefutable paradox that if such a god exists, it would prove (irrefutably) the objective truth of my claims, all of which would necessarily be true.
Posting (as you do) that a god exists axiomatically establishes that objective reality is an irrefutable fact. If that is true, then there can exist nothing subjectively "true," yes? Everything would be objectively true, according to that standard.
Thus, the presupposition of the god concept axiomatically establishes an objective reality and, indirectly, negates the notion that any aspect of "reality" can be subjectively interpreted.
If that were the case, then there would be no effective purpose to positing a god to begin with, yes? If everything is subjective, then the objective establishment of a god's existence is rendered utterly pointless.
Argue subjectivity and you deny a god's existence. Period. Argue objectivity, and you affirm rationals of logic and science.
Your choice. Argue subjectivity and you prove conclusively the non-existence of god. Argue objectivity and you prove conclusively that the natural "world' exists without need of a god and therefore mandates what it is we learn from it.
Either way you slice it, you prove that a mystical fairy god-king like being, magically "willing" the universe and humanity into existence is not just absurd, but logically unsound.
(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).
I think three rounds should be enough; if we want to keep arguing past that, we could of course start a regular thread.
(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
Turns, and Koyaanisqatsi obviously goes first, as he is the one who has an argument to advance.
(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement).
I'd like to suggest a limit of about 1500 words per statement. This is a small topic.
(g) The maximum duration between statements.
Three days or so? Once again, it's not a big topic.
(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed).
How about "no sources except dictionaries", to avoid an endless quoting festival.
(i) The starting date of the debate.
I can start whenever, but I might need to plead for extensions once or twice if the debate overlaps with my upcoming standards meeting.
(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).
I don't see an immediate need for extra rules.