Peanut Gallery: "Does God Exist?" debate between Punkforchrist vs. Deschain

[HRG]

Given that “X cannot be ~X at the same time and in the same sense” is a necessary proposition, it follows that it has necessary existence.

1. A proposition is not a thing; thus what it means to exist is quite different from what it means that a thing exists. Its existence depends on the existence of a language in which it has been formulated; thus it cannot be necessary.

2. "~ X" is undefined. The negation operator applies to propositions, not to things.

3. That "S & ~S" is always false is a consequence of the semantics of & and ~.

[HelpingHand]

I may be wrong , but I get the impression that it is getting harder and harder to have a decent debate here.
I mean: what is so hard about replying to somebody in due time, or else asking for a delay, or if you do not wish to continue the debate, just saying so?

I, for one, had hoped to see an interesting debate here because Punkforchrist has a few nice ideas and arguments. But the way it loks now, this debate is over before it has actually begun, and that's a pity.

There may of course be a good reason why Deschain doesn't reply, and in that case, I withdraw my criticism.

[jonJ]

[quote=""HelpingHand""]I may be wrong , but I get the impression that it is getting harder and harder to have a decent debate here.
I mean: what is so hard about replying to somebody in due time, or else asking for a delay, or if you do not wish to continue the debate, just saying so?[/quote]

My view is that there just aren't any theists left who a) can express themselves rationally and b) think they can win a debate against atheism. That's not to say that they've changed their minds, just that they know from experience that open debate is nearly always a disaster for their cause.

I agree that's frustrating for us, but in the larger scheme of things it's a good sign. Dissuading people from arguing for theism is a step towards ending theism.

[-RRH-]

For example an acorn, therefore everything.

[HelpingHand]

[quote=""jonJ""]

I may be wrong , but I get the impression that it is getting harder and harder to have a decent debate here.
I mean: what is so hard about replying to somebody in due time, or else asking for a delay, or if you do not wish to continue the debate, just saying so?

My view is that there just aren't any theists left who a) can express themselves rationally and b) think they can win a debate against atheism. That's not to say that they've changed their minds, just that they know from experience that open debate is nearly always a disaster for their cause.

I agree that's frustrating for us, but in the larger scheme of things it's a good sign. Dissuading people from arguing for theism is a step towards ending theism.[/QUOTE]

In this case, it's not the theist who seems to have backed out, though.
Punkforchrist, for one, seems quite able to express himself rationally and, since Deschain obviously stopped replying, Punkforchrist has at least won this debate.

What is frustrating for me is that some very interesting arguments in favour of theism have been left unanswered here, and that'sa pity, because there are very good answers to every single argument Punkforchrist has put forward. Therefore, it is a completely mystery to me why Deschain left the debate.

[punkforchrist]

My view is that there just aren't any theists left who a) can express themselves rationally and b) think they can win a debate against atheism. That's not to say that they've changed their minds, just that they know from experience that open debate is nearly always a disaster for their cause.

I agree that's frustrating for us, but in the larger scheme of things it's a good sign. Dissuading people from arguing for theism is a step towards ending theism.

I can only speak for myself by saying that it doesn't come down to winning or losing these debates. Rather, I typically stay out of such debates because it's difficult to find a quality debate on the internet. Obviously, I make an occasional exception. Anyone can post on forums and blogs and, while there are some thoughtful replies on both sides, for the most part the quality just isn't there. One gets tired of responding to the same objections and often (not always, or even necessarily for the most part) to a lot of condescending rhetoric. I'm not saying you're guilty of that, just so you don't get the wrong impression. It's just a general observation about forums and blogs whose membership is predominantly partisan (theist or atheist, conservative or liberal, etc.).

It's one of the reasons I've stopped engaging in most informal debates.

[arnoldo]

I. The Argument from Motion

The argument from motion is one of the most commonly misunderstood arguments for God's existence, but I maintain that objections to the argument are invariably based on a misunderstanding of both Newtonian physics and Aristotelian metaphysics.

According to Mortimer J. Adler, Aristotle was wrong when it came to certain aspects of his metaphysics. Adler writes the following,

In the second place, I think that the argument for design that is presented by Aquinas in his fifth argument for the existence of the God in whom Christians believe is an unsound teleological argument, unsound because it is based on Aristotle's error of attributing the operation of final causes to the processes of natural motions or actions, whereas they properly belong only in the production of human works of art. This erroneous argument is later presented in Paley's Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1816), in which the watchmaker's design of the time-piece he makes is proposed as the model in terms of which we should think of God's relation to the universe he creates. The creator is not an artist making an artifact; the created universe is not a work of art. In the third place, as I have shown in How to Think About God, the presence of chance in the universe, both in cosmological developments and in biological evolu-tion, lies at the heart of an indispensable premise in the only sound philosophical argument for the existence of God.

MORTIMER J. ADLER ON NATURAL THEOLOGY, CHANCE AND GOD

[Achwienichtig]

:blank: