infinity
May 15, 2004, 12:32 AM
The topic of the debate:
logical reasoning for *belief* in the christian god. not for the existence of god (i think that's pointless to debate) but the logic behind believing that god does/does not exist with nothing but the world around us as evidence for/against such belief.
The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:
i would be interested in this discussion with albert, but will be happy with any xtian/catholic who has a decently firm grasp for the reasoning behind their personal belief.
i will take the position that not believing in god is the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence of the world around us. challenger would take the position that believing in god is the most reasonable conclusion
The scope of the debate:
whether there is a logical reason to believe in the christian god. by 'logical' i mean the process by which we as humans deduce that 'from a, b, c, i can conclude d to be the most likely case'
as for 'god' i will leave that to the challenger to define. i'm not going to argue you about properties of a god you don't believe in, but i also insist that we agree upon what *basic* set of attributes we give to 'god' upon which our arguments will be based
The length of the debate, in number of rounds:
since i have no limitations in mind, i will go with the maximum allowed
Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:
honestly doesn't matter to me, on either count. i'm comfortable with any debate format, so if anyone takes the challenge and has a preference i'll be fine with that. i am willing to go first, or let challenger go first; to state first point or to counterpoint. i'll leave this open to accomodate challengers.
The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations):
as stated above, i have no limits in mind, so the maximum allowed
The maximum duration between statements:
3 days
The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed):
zero. if i cared what Dr. GodLover thought was proof of god, i'd read his book. absolutely no outside quotes whatsoever except in an anecdotal context, or to borrow a phrase which you feel explains your position well
The starting date of the debate:
at the challenger's convenience. i have no time constraints whatsoever
Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval):
in an attempt to keep the debate on topic, i have the following rules:
1. conditions of position - in an attempt to limit the debate turning into whether or not god exists at all:
challenger will format their position presuming a creator does *not* exist, and therefor arguing why believing the christian god *does* exist is more reasonable
i will format my position presuming a creator *does* exist, and therefor arguing why believing the christian god does *not* exist is more reasonable
2. limits of double standards - in an attempt to limit circular arguments:
neither myself nor challenger will use what can be considered circular or double standard arguments, ex: you can't say 'well what caused the world if not god' and i can't say 'well what caused god'
(this will be a difficult provision to adhere to, but i want to try very hard to keep the debate about the logic of believing in the christian god given the world we live in... not about the existence of god)
3. limits of unproovable concepts - in an attempt to limit 'does so' 'does not' arguments:
neither myself nor the challenger will use what can be considered unproovable premises as facts. ex: i will not presume that god can't change or circumvent the laws of nature or that god is transcendent of reality as we know it, challenger will not presume our current understanding of science is the limit of what science can discover about the universe or that science is incapable of discovering the cause for everything given enough time.
to restate, i am seeking a discussion on the logical merits of believing in a christian god based solely on evidence available in the world around us. i am not seeking a 'does god exist' argument (though i know the line between the two ideas is *very* thin)
logical reasoning for *belief* in the christian god. not for the existence of god (i think that's pointless to debate) but the logic behind believing that god does/does not exist with nothing but the world around us as evidence for/against such belief.
The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:
i would be interested in this discussion with albert, but will be happy with any xtian/catholic who has a decently firm grasp for the reasoning behind their personal belief.
i will take the position that not believing in god is the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence of the world around us. challenger would take the position that believing in god is the most reasonable conclusion
The scope of the debate:
whether there is a logical reason to believe in the christian god. by 'logical' i mean the process by which we as humans deduce that 'from a, b, c, i can conclude d to be the most likely case'
as for 'god' i will leave that to the challenger to define. i'm not going to argue you about properties of a god you don't believe in, but i also insist that we agree upon what *basic* set of attributes we give to 'god' upon which our arguments will be based
The length of the debate, in number of rounds:
since i have no limitations in mind, i will go with the maximum allowed
Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:
honestly doesn't matter to me, on either count. i'm comfortable with any debate format, so if anyone takes the challenge and has a preference i'll be fine with that. i am willing to go first, or let challenger go first; to state first point or to counterpoint. i'll leave this open to accomodate challengers.
The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations):
as stated above, i have no limits in mind, so the maximum allowed
The maximum duration between statements:
3 days
The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed):
zero. if i cared what Dr. GodLover thought was proof of god, i'd read his book. absolutely no outside quotes whatsoever except in an anecdotal context, or to borrow a phrase which you feel explains your position well
The starting date of the debate:
at the challenger's convenience. i have no time constraints whatsoever
Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval):
in an attempt to keep the debate on topic, i have the following rules:
1. conditions of position - in an attempt to limit the debate turning into whether or not god exists at all:
challenger will format their position presuming a creator does *not* exist, and therefor arguing why believing the christian god *does* exist is more reasonable
i will format my position presuming a creator *does* exist, and therefor arguing why believing the christian god does *not* exist is more reasonable
2. limits of double standards - in an attempt to limit circular arguments:
neither myself nor challenger will use what can be considered circular or double standard arguments, ex: you can't say 'well what caused the world if not god' and i can't say 'well what caused god'
(this will be a difficult provision to adhere to, but i want to try very hard to keep the debate about the logic of believing in the christian god given the world we live in... not about the existence of god)
3. limits of unproovable concepts - in an attempt to limit 'does so' 'does not' arguments:
neither myself nor the challenger will use what can be considered unproovable premises as facts. ex: i will not presume that god can't change or circumvent the laws of nature or that god is transcendent of reality as we know it, challenger will not presume our current understanding of science is the limit of what science can discover about the universe or that science is incapable of discovering the cause for everything given enough time.
to restate, i am seeking a discussion on the logical merits of believing in a christian god based solely on evidence available in the world around us. i am not seeking a 'does god exist' argument (though i know the line between the two ideas is *very* thin)