- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Stu.
This is an invitation for a debate on the following subject.
“The Existence of God”.
I will argue that he exists because….
And you will argue that he doesn’t exist because…Essentially this has been the stances we have held since we both joined this forum and having a one on one debate will compact all our arguments and evidence for either stance.
This will make the whole subject a lot clearer for all to read.
I hope you take my challenge and do not chicken out like last time.
If Stu declines to debate me, then I would like to let others give feedback on why they think he declined. If he accepts, I would like to open this debate up to all, once we both agree that the debate is finished or if one member stops posting.
That's not a debating moot. Please try again. That is, if you are serious about proper debating.
Stuart
I am not sure your question is complete. A moot 'question' is one that is arguable or open to debate.
'Does God exist' is open for debate and is a popular question that is debated by many. YouTube or google it.
If this question is not moot enough for you, or my debate is not mootated enough, then please propose yourself how we can move forward from here and into a debate about the existence of God.
I leave it up to you to set the conditions on this subject as you see as fit for debating this. If I am happy with what you propose, I will accept. If you want to change the question, then let's here it.
Please no stalling. Just get on with it so we can start.
Okay thanks for that. Maybe we can get going with conditions that you are happy with.
“That the universe and life prove that God exists.”
I am obviously the Affirmative team, that “That universe and life prove that God exists”.
You are the negative team, “That the universe and life does not prove that God exists”.
Further, I would like to ask that either of us can set a must answer question and that it must be a fair question. There must also be no more than one of these question types at any one time, unless the person being asked this question is happy to answer more. A reasonable answer to a must answer question is an explanation that answers the question, a yes, no, or I don't know.
I just want to make sure that neither of us avoid questions on purpose as that tactic is annoying to any debater and any person reading the debate.
Well, OK then. Had it been me in your shoes I don't think I would have given my opponent such an obvious opportunity to avoid engaging with your intent. Given that you seem to be indicating empirically observable features, then the word “proof” is easily dismissed by the philosophy of science. However, it's your challenge and your choice of moot. (I personally would have gone with “That a reasonable person should believe one or more gods exist on the probability of evidence”).
You will be aware from that same website that the moot is defined through an opening statement for the affirmative (that's you). In that statement I will expect you to be defining “universe”, “life”, “god”, and “exists”. The definition of life is something about which professional biologists could argue for days. God is something I particularly look forward to you defining; should I take it you mean the Judeo-christian Imaginary Friend, or any old gods? Will you be saying that some gods don't exist, thereby scuppering your own case before you have started? Take some care with your definition of “exists”. The debate may end with my first statement, in which I could agree that you have established that a god exists in your own imagination. As for defining “universe”, good luck with that.
Not that I would want to instill any doubt for you…
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,20:51) Further, I would like to ask that either of us can set a must answer question and that it must be a fair question. There must also be no more than one of these question types at any one time, unless the person being asked this question is happy to answer more. A reasonable answer to a must answer question is an explanation that answers the question, a yes, no, or I don't know. I just want to make sure that neither of us avoid questions on purpose as that tactic is annoying to any debater and any person reading the debate.
You've already annoyed me t8, so it's too late for that.Conventional debating does not require “must answer” questions, that's ridiculous. It is up to you to build a case, and you could choose to point out to others reading this that you think I have avoided a particular question, but you must understand that my history discussing various dull subjects with you is that you ask the most banal semantic questions.
So, sorry, I will conform to standard norms of debating only.
Stuart
I might add that there is one bias against me here, and that is I don't have editing rights. So I would appreciate it if you could desist from editing any of your posts. I am happy to accept retractions and corrections posted later.
Stuart
Okay that is fair.
I would appreciate no dodging. It is very annoying and not helpful to anyone.
And I won't edit posts so that we are even.I will open the debate if you are happy to proceed.
I won't start tonight as it is late.
Would also like to add that I won't be pushing you to answer promptly. I prefer quality answers, not quick ones.It has been a week. Should we take it that in fact there is nothing about the universe or life that indicates the existence of Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna)?
Stuart
Indeed. If the Judeo-christian god did survive Nietzsche's assassination attempt, it will have died of old age by the time this gets underway.
Stuart
I guess this is one dead debate. Would anyone like to speculate why t8 apparently didn't want to be involved, even though he started it?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 24 2012,21:30) I guess this is one dead debate. Would anyone like to speculate why t8 apparently didn't want to be involved, even though he started it? Stuart
Idon't know ifanyone else can evn join this debate otherwise I certainly would like to engage.What if one took the position that God does not exist which is reasonable since God Is the creator of existence meaning thet the only description would be to say that God is IMPOSSIBLE.
Crtainly we would all agree that Existence Exists, right?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2012,09:29) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 24 2012,21:30) I guess this is one dead debate. Would anyone like to speculate why t8 apparently didn't want to be involved, even though he started it? Stuart
Idon't know ifanyone else can evn join this debate otherwise I certainly would like to engage.What if one took the position that God does not exist which is reasonable since God Is the creator of existence meaning thet the only description would be to say that God is IMPOSSIBLE.
Crtainly we would all agree that Existence Exists, right?
Who would try to defend “God is impossible”?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 10 2012,15:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2012,09:29) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 24 2012,21:30) I guess this is one dead debate. Would anyone like to speculate why t8 apparently didn't want to be involved, even though he started it? Stuart
Idon't know ifanyone else can evn join this debate otherwise I certainly would like to engage.What if one took the position that God does not exist which is reasonable since God Is the creator of existence meaning thet the only description would be to say that God is IMPOSSIBLE.
Crtainly we would all agree that Existence Exists, right?
Who would try to defend “God is impossible”?Stuart
Exactly
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
