Clutch

Tron, that is very funny.

beastmaster

First off, you need to define terms in order to frame the debate. What is God? One advantage you have in this debate is that your opponent appears to be ready and willing to defend the omnimax God of the Xn Bible. So, he accepts that God by definition must be perfectly good, omnipotent, and omnicient, created the universe, etc. - I believe it adds up to seven characteristics. That's a lot of underbelly to attack.

Second, try to craft your arguments to appeal to open-minded Xns. The non-theists in the audience are already on your side, so there is no sense in arguing to them.

How you argue is more important than what you say. Be intellectually humble. Come as a helper. Be frank about the limits of human understanding, and more importantly, the limits of the English language to explain phenomena (like the origins of the universe) that are outside the realm of our perception. [Words like "before" and "cause" all assume time, which is a condition not present "before" the universe "began." Using these words is like trying to bake a cake with a hammer -- they're the wrong tools for the job.]

Only argue as much as you need to win. Anything beyond that only runs the risk of turning people off or putting you on the defensive. For example, you don't need to prove evolution or the Big Bang. It is sufficient for you to win if you present a rational reason to be skeptical as to any of the seven characteristics of your opponents' conception of God.

Durston's defense against the Problem of Evil is weak. It appears that he argues that:

(1) God is a utilitarian. He lets babies die because in the long run it creates the greatest good for the greatest number.

My answer: where is God's objective morality, then? Are dead babies wrong, or does it depend on the circumstances? In any event, letting babies die when God has the power to stop it is repugnant, period.

(2) This world may not be perfect, but it is the best world possible.

My answer: if heaven exists then, by definition, this is not the best of all possible worlds. If this is the best of all possible worlds then heaven doesn't exist. Which is it?

(3) Suffering is not bad because in the afterlife God erases our memories and compensates us.

My answer: In that case, is rape ok, as long as the rapist (1) uses roofies to erase her memories of it and (2) buys her roses the next day? How is the wrong of rape made any less? I'm still failing to grasp God's objective morality that is so intuitive to Durston.

Don't give your arguments names. Feel free to argue the Problem of Evil, but don't call it that. Two reasons. (1) If your argument has a name, then people assume it has already been defeated by a really smart philosopher in a book somewhere. (2) Just plain common sense doesn't need a name.

Make sure to have fun.

faustuz

He's going to use History? That should make you very afraid. It makes me think that he’s going to use an historical apologetics approach, which means that he is going to trot out all kinds of 1st and 2nd century Greeks, Romans and Hebrews that nobody except specialists have heard of. Since you have never heard of these Greeks, Romans and Hebrews you will have absolutely no way to refute his arguments, even if he’s pulling them out of thin error. You will thereby be made to look silly. This is the way Christian apologetics and debates on the historical Jesus usually go. Nobody other than a specialist dare get into such a debate.

gcomeau

You're likely to encounter some kind of dramatically incredulous "ohhh reeeaallllyyy?" response if you call his attention to this... but Steinhardt and Turok aren't exactly slouches in matters of Physics... just read the first page of that second link I gave you. Don't worry, we're not talking about some theory dreamed up in a crackpot's basement here, it's got a lot of testing in store for it before it has a shot at displacing the inflationary model as the best accepted theory but let Durston just try arguing with the credibility of the theory if he wants and you can hit him over the head with the credentials of it's authors and ask him if he would mind explaining how exactly he consideres himself more qualified than they to speak to the subject matter.

It's a good way to go in a written debate, but depending on who your audience is it might be a hard concept to effectively convey in a convincing manner in an oral debate. A lot of people hear something like that and think... "so you're trying to tell me that before the universe there was no time!?!?" and never even realize that 'before' just has no meaning when discussing that concept. Of course, if you think you've got an audience that will follow you when you explain it then go for it.

-Grant

jmsr

Yes, I know it's hard to understand, that's why I am looking for clever analogies to cover all these concepts. For example, "what was there before the universe (and time) began" makes as much sense / is analogous to "what is north of the north pole." I hope to illustrate its nonsensical nature like that.

Oh, and as far as the use of history and the bible goes, I intend to pull him back to first principles by relating a conversation I had with a ba'hai. This young guy spent an hour talking my ear off, trying to convince me that god revealed himself in every religion's scriptures, and that ba'hullah was the last prophet of god. What I couldn't drill into this thickhead's skull was that I was still on page one (does god exist) while he was on page 2 (which religion represents god/ which religion is true). In the same manner, I intend to admonish him for wasting the audience's time and "encourage" (berate) him into getting back on the topic.

Might these two tactics work?

jmsr

faustuz

jmsr,

I’m not so sure your approach will work, if he really does take the approach of historical apologetics, i.e. proving that the bible is historically accurate. You can keep trying to pull him back to the general question of whether or not God exists, but if he keeps throwing out “facts” that you can not refute due to lack of data it’s going to make you look unprepared and unknowledgeable in the eyes of the audience. He can say that if he can prove that the Resurrection actually took place, then he has proven not only that God exists, but that the God of the Bible exists. I think he is justified in saying this, if somebody could prove that the Resurrection took place it would be a slam dunk both for Christianity and for the existence of God. There is currently a thread on this subject in this forum here.

Of course I’m not saying that he can actually prove that the Resurrection took place. I think it is impossible to do so. But I have certainly seen Christian apologists with a great deal of worthless knowledge of obscure personages and events throw out reams of that knowledge to confound opposing debaters. It’s a cheap trick, but it works in a debate. Hopefully he won’t use the historical apologetics approach. I looked at some of the links that Mageth posted and it doesn’t appear that this has been his approach in the past.

Jobar

Hoo boy. jmsr, you have bitten off a mighty big mouthful here- and not much time to chew on it.

I'm going to give you some general debating advice. It's been a long time since I've done any debating, but I was fair at it; so, here goes.

First, make sure your audience realizes that you are *not* a professional debater, and that your opponent is. Don't harp on it, as that will make it seem you are asking for pity. Just a single sentence, in your introductory remarks; then proceed immediately to your strategy.

There are basically two strategies for debating a negative position, which is what you will be doing. I am assuming he will speak first, since the positive normally does. The first, and most common, strategy is to refute his assertions point by point, or at least his major points.

If you choose to do this, you will need help to do it right, or else you'll get snowed under trying to keep track of what he's saying. You need someone who can jot down condensed notes, following your opponent's points; this is usually done on index cards, which can then be matched with index cards with a condensed version of your refutation to his argument. This way you can follow the same order as he does, and even, in this case, write down a lot of his arguments beforehand. If you do not prepare ahead of time, and do some practicing, you *will* lose. Worse, you will feel like he has made a fool of you! Practice giving standard refutations to his standard points, over and over. Stand up and talk before friends, as many as possible; get them to critique your performance, and suggest improvements.

The second basic strategy is to do an 'end run'- not directly confront the arguments he is making, but present your own points in the form of a speech or story which undercuts his core position. This is much trickier, but may present less work; essentially you would be giving a speech on why God *does not* exist, trying to deal, at least glancingly, with any major point he might present.

If this follows standard form, you will each have 10 or more minutes each to present your initial arguments, followed by 5 or more to refute the specific arguments from the initial presentation.

More general advice, which you have already been given- keep it as simple and short and snappy as possible. A debate on topics as complicated as EoG are damnably difficult to simplify, so if you manage short and snappy, you are ahead of the game.

Now. I have a possible strategy of the second sort which you might consider; if you want to try it, I'll do all I can to flesh it out further. For background, check out the Institute for Unicorn Research, one of the various online temples for the worship of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The point to this whole bit is that the worship of God is no more sensible, and no better supported, than the worship of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Let's see, I need to find a specific thread there...

St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

One of our regular theist posters, Gemma Therese, posted Aquinas' arguments for EoG; I instantly saw that they were just as applicable to the IPU. It might be a very humorous and effective way to win your debate- match every one of his arguments up to the existence of the IPU, as I did to Aquinas. I am sure it would be a ton of fun, anyway!

If you do this, you can bet that you'll throw him off his stride!

eh

I just have one thing to add about the beginning of our universe. You need not refer to any 11 dimensional theories to explain the big bang, as the modern version of the theory will do. The problem is, theists tend to contruct arguments based on the standard big bang model, which has been outdated for many years now. You can't have a serious discussion about the BBT, without the subject of inflation coming up.

While we have a lot of evidence for an evolving cosmos, such as the cosmic background radiation, it has been said that most cosmologists believe this is a direct result of inflation - not the big bang. With inflation, the only beginning we know of is the beginning of our visible universe, which inflated from a pre-existing region of spacetime. With chaotic inflation, the universe could have existed forever, while only certain regions of the universe will have galaxies. So the claim that the universe had a beginning, is as about as effective as arguing that the earh had a beginning.

If your opponent is unfamiliar with inflation, then it is clear he has not done any research into the area of cosmology. In that case, you can easily show how his cosmological argument is nonsense.