Jarhyn

Lately, there has been a slow-boiling discussion on the subject of recognizing design, design of the universe, and if life has been designed. As a result, I wish to debate the subject in more narrow terms. The proposal is that I wish debate on one of the following discreet topics: design of the universe as a discreet whole, the design of life as we see it today, or the design of evolutionary mechanics (the origin of life). As I see it, these are fundamentally different topics.

Note here that design in these statements is not to construe an assumption that things were designed but to address the question of if they were, if the question is appropriate to the subject, and if the answer can be known.

Specifically, I am calling out nafeesa, but will be willing to debate any of these with anyone. I would also prefer to take the position of the negative, but am not dead set on it.

Achwienichtig

Ooo, this should be good. I actually wrote my senior thesis in undergraduate on the subject of design. Hopefully you get taken up in this debate so I can hang out in the peanut gallery. :eating_popcorn:

Jarhyn

I hope so too; though to be honest this is more an attempt to directly challenge those who bring forth the "argument from design". Though most people on these forums who trot out such arguments seem to be of the hit-and-run bent. Still, one can always hope.

Jo

I recommend you send a private message to the persons you think may be interested in a debate and direct them to this thread.

Deschain

I'll debate it. Two debate questions: (1) How can we recognize design?; and (2) Is the design argument a good argument for the existence of God? I'll argue the affirmative for (2), and we can debate back and forth as regards to (1).

Jarhyn

This sounds like a good time, to me. I'll argue the negative against 2, as 2 presupposes 1; for there to be an argument from design to prove god, there must first be a demonstration of design. I would pose a more suitable (1), though, namely not "how can we recognize design?", but rather "When can we recognize design?", as we can both likely agree that there are many situations and many different ways in those situations to identify design, but that all situations in which design can be known, or in which when design is an applicable property to associate with an object, consist at the very least of a set for which some limitations on it may be known.

To that end, I would gladly give you the opening argument. I would be happy with terms of no longer than 1 week between posts, with no more than 2000 words per post.

Deschain

Deal. I'll start writing an opening statement right away.

Jo

Can you please structure it as it is set out below and then I can get it properly set up. Thank you.

1. The topic of the debate.
2. The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
3. The scope of the debate.
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.
6. The maximum length of each statement.
7. The time limit 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.

Jarhyn

Given the ambiguity of "good" I would like to establish more succinctly what the main question will be. I would be happy with 'can design of the universe be demonstrated from observation of the universe?' or even 'can the property of design be known for the universe," or even "is the argument from design sufficient to demonstrate the existence of god(s)?"

Deschain

I like the first one best. Four rounds? Scope will include discussion of science and philosophy? Quotations limited within reason. Week between statements and 2,000 word limit. Statements made in turn, and if it pleases everyone I'll submit the first statement, making the positive case. Sound alright?