Challenge to all Atheists

[Albert09]

Now what I wanted you to read....

How about this challenge for any of *one* of you....

How about a formal written debate format? I have always wanted to debate on God's existence and a formal written debate would be best. I will put it on my website when we are done. Here is the format:

Does God Exist?

Opening Statements: limit 5,000 words
1st Rebuttal: limit 3,000 words
2nd Rebuttal: limit 3,000 words
Closing Statements: 1,000 words

Agreed?

[Kalkin]

edit - no longer applicable since this was just moved.

[Jade]

Formal debate challenges belong in the Formal Debate Challenges Forum, not EoG.

[dshimel]

I'll take the challenge, BUT, only if in the setup, you provide clear, precise, detailed definitions of “God� and “Exist�. Nothing worse than spending 5000 words arguing that the God(s) of the Bible are not real, only to have God change into any potential intelligent creator of the universe, and exist mean a possibility.

That is, would you be arguing for the existence off an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, intelligent creator of the universe, that desires to be worshipped, has revealed himself through divine inspiration of the Bible, alters the laws of physics and probability for the benefit of his followers (answers prayers), was born of flesh, sacrificed himself to himself to appease his anger at himself and now sits at the right hand of himself in the land above the sky dome? Or, would you be arguing for an amorphous and esoteric “god of the gaps�?

By exist, do you mean “in reality of logic and meaning� or outside of reality, outside of time-and-space, beyond logic and human comprehension.

In short, I need to know if I’ll be arguing if “God does not exist� or “It is impossible to know if God exists� based upon the applicable definitions.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I just merged the two threads so we don't get confused...

Now what I wanted you to read....

How about this challenge for any of *one* of you....

How about a formal written debate format? I have always wanted to debate on God's existence and a formal written debate would be best. I will put it on my website when we are done. Here is the format:

Does God Exist?

Opening Statements: limit 5,000 words
1st Rebuttal: limit 3,000 words
2nd Rebuttal: limit 3,000 words
Closing Statements: 1,000 words

Agreed?


Hi Albert,

Here are some more parameters to think about, from:

FD Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=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).

[Albert09]

I'll take the challenge, BUT, only if in the setup, you provide clear, precise, detailed definitions of “God� and “Exist�. Nothing worse than spending 5000 words arguing that the God(s) of the Bible are not real, only to have God change into any potential intelligent creator of the universe, and exist mean a possibility.

That is, would you be arguing for the existence off an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, intelligent creator of the universe, that desires to be worshipped, has revealed himself through divine inspiration of the Bible, alters the laws of physics and probability for the benefit of his followers (answers prayers), was born of flesh, sacrificed himself to himself to appease his anger at himself and now sits at the right hand of himself in the land above the sky dome? Or, would you be arguing for an amorphous and esoteric “god of the gaps�?

By exist, do you mean “in reality of logic and meaning� or outside of reality, outside of time-and-space, beyond logic and human comprehension.

In short, I need to know if I’ll be arguing if “God does not exist� or “It is impossible to know if God exists� based upon the applicable definitions.

That's going to take more than 5,000 words and we would not exhaust or make any comprehensive discussion if we are going to debate everything you asked there. What I will debate is Mere Christianity. More specifically, that a Supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, personal Creator of the universe who worked through Jesus Christ exists. By exist, I don't mean a "potential" being, but an *actual* being. That's what existence means...an actuality of essence. And you'll be arguing for the atheistic worldview.

[solitude_24]

Now what I wanted you to read....

How about this challenge for any of *one* of you....

How about a formal written debate format? I have always wanted to debate on God's existence and a formal written debate would be best. I will put it on my website when we are done. Here is the format:

Does God Exist?

Opening Statements: limit 5,000 words
1st Rebuttal: limit 3,000 words
2nd Rebuttal: limit 3,000 words
Closing Statements: 1,000 words

Agreed?

well before people agree to a debate they have to know exactly what they are to discuss, the term god is a broad topic and is open to various perspectives. dont you think its a little bit too general to discuss in such a formal manner?

[Albert09]

well before people agree to a debate they have to know exactly what they are to discuss, the term god is a broad topic and is open to various perspectives. dont you think its a little bit too general to discuss in such a formal manner?

By God, I mean a Supreme Transcendent and Personal Being. Philosophers today don't have a hard time debating that.

Again, my challenge stands.

[dshimel]

What I will debate is Mere Christianity. More specifically, that a Supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, personal Creator of the universe who worked through Jesus Christ exists. By exist, I don't mean a "potential" being, but an *actual* being. That's what existence means...an actuality of essence. And you'll be arguing for the atheistic worldview.

I know I'm nitpicking, but it comes from experience....

There are thousands of flavors of Christianity. Some have fairly strict interpritation of the Bible, for example, believing the story of Noah and the Ark is about real people and real events.

Others take most of the Old Testiment to be more folklore than "truth", while focusing stricltly on the Gospels. That is, the whole Bible is simply a "setting" while the birth, death and resurection of the Christ is the real story.

So, for example, if I argue that the Biblical Flood did not happen, am I arguing against the God you will be arguing for? If I argue that the God of the Old Testiment is not the same God as the New Testiment, am I arguing against the God you will be arguing for?

[dshimel]

By God, I mean a Supreme Transcendent and Personal Being. Philosophers today don't have a hard time debating that.

Again, my challenge stands.

Okay, how about this format....

1) 2000 words where you fully lay out your God based world view, and describe the characteristics of that God.
2000 words from me where I fully lay out my non-God world view, and describe the characteristics of my reality.

2) 5000 words from each arguing why someone should subscribe to our world view.

3) 3000 words from each refuting the other's arguement.

4) 3000 words from each refuting the other's refutation.

5) 1000 word summary from each.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

So, for example, if I argue that the Biblical Flood did not happen, am I arguing against the God you will be arguing for? If I argue that the God of the Old Testiment is not the same God as the New Testiment, am I arguing against the God you will be arguing for?

This would fit into the scope of an evolution/creation debate rather than specifically an existence of God debate. We would prefer an EoG debate to focus on things like the design argument, the anthropic principle, cosmological arguments, religious experience, ontological arguments, presuppositional apologetics, positive arguments for atheism, and other philosophical arguments.

Though they're not mutually exclusive, arguments from creationism, the Bible, or history (e.g. prophecy, resurrection) would be somewhat peripheral to an EoG debate and it would be best to put debate topics that deal with those issues into a different category.

Jason

[Silent Dave]

Albert, can you provide a link to your website so that we may peruse it? Since you propose placing the debate on your website, I think it's fair that interested parties check out the context in which their words will be placed.


Dave

[dshimel]

This would fit into the scope of an evolution/creation debate rather than specifically an existence of God debate.

Since Albert made the challenge to debate if God exists, I'm just trying to get a feel for which God I'll be arguing against, and if I'll be arguing if said God likely does not exist, or simply should not be believed to exist.

If he were to say, "The God of the Bible exists", then arguments focused on the validity of the Bible would be "in scope". If he's just going to argue that there must be some intelligent creator of the universe, and we may as well believe in Jesus the Christ since, if he happens to be God, that will get us into heaven, then validity of the Old Testiment would clearly be out of scope.

[Albert09]

Okay, how about this format....

1) 2000 words where you fully lay out your God based world view, and describe the characteristics of that God.
2000 words from me where I fully lay out my non-God world view, and describe the characteristics of my reality.

2) 5000 words from each arguing why someone should subscribe to our world view.

3) 3000 words from each refuting the other's arguement.

4) 3000 words from each refuting the other's refutation.

5) 1000 word summary from each.

I don't understand the reason for 2000 words where one fully lay out my view and describe the charasteristics of God. I can do that at my opening statement where I show how God have those characteristics. And I would say that one rebuttal stage is not really much.

[dshimel]

I don't understand the reason for 2000 words where one fully lay out my view and describe the charasteristics of God. I can do that at my opening statement where I show how God have those characteristics. And I would say that one rebuttal stage is not really much.

The problem would be on con-current opening statements. That is, I can't begin to prepare an opening statement until I know which position to take. You say "the atheist" position, but there really are 2 atheist positions. Most atheists would agree with the following statements:

"The God of the Bible does not exist."

"It is impossible to know if the universe had an intellignet creator."

I can't know which position to take until I know which position you will take. That is, will you be arguing for the existance of the God as he is described in the Bible? Will you be picking and choosing parts of the Bible (such as the Gospels) while ignoring other parts (such as Genisis and Revelations)? Or, will you be arguing for the existance of your own version of God?

Truely, I can't begin to create an opening statement, until I know my position. My position is highly dependant upon a specific, detailed definition of God.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Albert09/dshimel,

Perhaps we could narrow the scope of the debate by talking about what kind of arguments you wish to use.

For example, Albert09 could say "I intend to argue for the EoG by using the cosmological argument, the anthropic principle, and that atheism can be reduced to self-referential absurdity." We would have a pretty good idea of where the debate will go at this point.

Just so we understand each other, I see 3 possible formats on how this debate might take place:

1) Albert09 presents arguments for the EoG initially and defends them throughout the debate. dshimel takes the negative, attacking Albert's arguments.

2) Both Albert09 and dshimel present positive arguments for their positions and respond to each other's arguments and defend their own.

3) Albert09 presents arguments for the EoG initially and defends them throughout the debate. dshimel takes the negative, attacks Albert's arguments while additionally bringing in new arguments that purport to create problems for Albert's particular theistic perspective (this kind of sounds like what dshimel wants, as he wants to nail down what type of theism Albert09 is arguing for).

Which approach are you both comfortable with?

Jason

[Cipher Girl]

Hi albert09
By God, I mean a Supreme Transcendent and Personal Being. Philosophers today don't have a hard time debating that.

Again, my challenge stands.

As I said back to you in PM when you sent the same exact text to me:
1) Define God
2) Define Supreme
3) Define Transcendant
4) Define Personal
5) Define Being

Once you define the above, then don't later change thier meanings in the course of debate. Perhaps I'll debate in an open style conversation. I don't have the time for a formal debate.

[Albert09]

The problem would be on con-current opening statements. That is, I can't begin to prepare an opening statement until I know which position to take. You say "the atheist" position, but there really are 2 atheist positions. Most atheists would agree with the following statements:

"The God of the Bible does not exist."

"It is impossible to know if the universe had an intellignet creator."

I can't know which position to take until I know which position you will take. That is, will you be arguing for the existance of the God as he is described in the Bible? Will you be picking and choosing parts of the Bible (such as the Gospels) while ignoring other parts (such as Genisis and Revelations)? Or, will you be arguing for the existance of your own version of God?

Truely, I can't begin to create an opening statement, until I know my position. My position is highly dependant upon a specific, detailed definition of God.

It's simple. I will write my opening statement first, then you make your opening statement and then rebuttals, etc. We're not going to hand in the opening statements at the same time. Then, you can see how I "define" God.

[dshimel]

It's simple. I will write my opening statement first, then you make your opening statement and then rebuttals, etc. We're not going to hand in the opening statements at the same time. Then, you can see how I "define" God.

Sounds good.

[dshimel]

Albert09/dshimel,

Perhaps we could narrow the scope of the debate by talking about what kind of arguments you wish to use.


My position will be simple. I was born without belief in God. Belief in God was not imposed upon me by my parents. As an adult, I've seen insufficient empirical data, nor seen a cogent argument, to convince me of God's existanse, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Beauty. Here's what we've got nailed down so far:

I made some additional comments on each parameter in red.


1) The topic of the debate:

Does God exist?

Would this be an appropriate title?

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

Albert09 will take the affirmative and dshimel will oppose.

dshimel, will you be presenting a postive position of your own, or will you primarily focus on rebutting Albert09's arguments and worldview?

3) The scope of the debate:

The debate will focus on the contention that a supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, personal Creator of the universe who worked through Jesus Christ exists.

The scope would change a little bit if dshimel wants to present a positive argument for atheism.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

????

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

In turns, and Albert09 goes first.

6) The maximum length of each statement:

????

7) The maximum duration between statements:

????

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:

????

9) The starting date of the debate:

????

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

????

[dshimel]

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

Albert09 will take the affirmative and dshimel will oppose.

dshimel, will you be presenting a postive position of your own, or will you primarily focus on rebutting Albert09's arguments and worldview?

I can't say at this time.

IF, he's presenting God with a clear definition, as a fixed target with set characteristics, then I'll take the position that it is highly unlikely that this God exists with those characteristics as there is no reliable way to determining the characteristics of an undetectable entity.

IF he's presenting God as an amorphous and esoteric being that is beyond logic and comprehension, then I'll simply be arguing that the existance of such a being can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll let Albert pick how many rounds, how many words, how much time to reply (must be at least 72 hours, but should be no more than a week), limits on quotes or links to external materials, etc.

[Albert09]

Beauty. Here's what we've got nailed down so far:

I made some additional comments on each parameter in red.


1) The topic of the debate:

Does God exist?

Would this be an appropriate title?

Yes.

The debate will focus on the contention that a supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, personal Creator of the universe who worked through Jesus Christ exists.

The scope would change a little bit if dshimel wants to present a positive argument for atheism.

That's basically it. My opening will basically define it though.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

????

I would say Opening Statements, 2 rebuttals, and a Closing.

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

In turns, and Albert09 goes first.

I'll go first.

6) The maximum length of each statement:

????

Opening 5,000, Rebuttals 3,000, and Closing 1,000 , including quotes.

7) The maximum duration between statements:

????

1 Week

9) The starting date of the debate:

????

How about the debate starts when I send my Opening?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

How about the debate starts when I send my Opening?

That's fine, but it will have to be within a particular period. The "start date" refers to when we set up the formal debate thread in the Formal Debates & Discussions (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=17) forum. If the maximum duration between statements is a week, then we would expect the first statement to be submitted within a week of the start date.

For example, if the "start date" was May 20th, then we would set up the formal debate thread on that date. In addition, if the maximum duration between responses was a week, then we would expect the opening statement to be submitted in that thread by May 27th.

Here's a summary of the suggested parameters again so far, unless you or dshimel wish to make more amendments:

1) The topic of the debate:

Does God exist?

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

Albert09 will take the affirmative and dshimel will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate:

The debate will focus on the contention that a supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, personal Creator of the universe who worked through Jesus Christ exists. dshimel's counterarguments will depend on Albert09's precise defintion of "God."

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

4 rounds.

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

In turns, and Albert09 goes first.

6) The maximum length of each statement:

Variable (see #10)

7) The maximum duration between statements:

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:

????

9) The starting date of the debate:

????

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

Word length limits are variable depending on the round:

Round 1: 5000 words max.; Round 2-3: 3000 words max.; Round 4: 1000 words.

[Albert09]

That's fine, but it will have to be within a particular period. The "start date" refers to when we set up the formal debate thread in the Formal Debates & Discussions (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=17) forum. If the maximum duration between statements is a week, then we would expect the first statement to be submitted within a week of the start date.

For example, if the "start date" was May 20th, then we would set up the formal debate thread on that date. In addition, if the maximum duration between responses was a week, then we would expect the opening statement to be submitted in that thread by May 27th.

Here's a summary of the suggested parameters again so far, unless you or dshimel wish to make more amendments:

1) The topic of the debate:

Does God exist?

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

Albert09 will take the affirmative and dshimel will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate:

The debate will focus on the contention that a supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, personal Creator of the universe who worked through Jesus Christ exists. dshimel's counterarguments will depend on Albert09's precise defintion of "God."

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

4 rounds.

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

In turns, and Albert09 goes first.

6) The maximum length of each statement:

Variable (see #10)

7) The maximum duration between statements:

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:

????

9) The starting date of the debate:

????

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

Word length limits are variable depending on the round:

Round 1: 5000 words max.; Round 2-3: 3000 words max.; Round 4: 1000 words.

For #8, you guys can quote sources inside your statements, but those quoted words should also be counted. Every word is counted inside your statements, but endnotes or footnotes are not counted. 5000 words is quite a lot for an opening statement.

Since I’m taking the affirmative for "Does God exist?" I should go first. In a formal debate, the affirmative normally goes first. I send the opening, then the debate begins from there.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

It has come to my attention that Albert09 has been banned. Since his presence is necessary for a formal debate proposal, this thread will now be closed.

Jason