GunnerJ

This is not so much as a debate, as an attempt to "settle a bet."

I put the following thread before you for your inspection: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000005" target="_blank">First Cause Cannot Prove God</a>

I am particularly interested in your opinion of the arguments made by Ed and the responses to it. Take your time and look over the back-and-forth between Ed and the atheists who responded to him. I want you to disregard whether or not you agree with me or the other atheists or Ed and just objectively view the flow of the debate. After doing so, I would kindly request you answer a few questions:

• Did Ed "demonstrate" that only the Xian god could cause the universe? Again, please put aside whether you do, in fact, agree with Ed's contention, simply look at the quality of his arguments. Did he prove his point?
• Did I and the other atheists become "frustrated" when we were "unable to refute" his arguments, and did this subsequently cause us to ignore him? Or was it simply that Ed was rtefusing to acknowledge our refutations?
• Did Ed adequetely defend his position against our counter-arguments, or did he simply redirect from the actual subject of discussion, digress off-topic from the subject of the thread and the forum in an attempt to evade us, shift goalposts wildly by refusing to take an actual position, appeal to authority, age, and popularity, or engage in any other dishonest and frustrating debate tactics which would rightfully tick off anyone debating with him?

This is not a debate thread, per se, and I will not argue wit your findings; I merely want your opinion. Thank you in advance for your time.

[Edited to add: this is not JUST for theists, though; any infidels can weigh in their vote if they like, although the opinion of those atheists who didn't participate in the debate would be more helpful]

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Plump-DJ

Well i'd like to add my own 2 cents if i may. I never read the debate but given my readings on this topic already i'd say i have a fair idea of how the arguments went.

I would simply say that if one accepts that a first cause is required then the existence of God becomes more of a neccessity or possiblity. At least that's how i look at it. I mean the first cause argument sort of says "We need something else to fill in our picture of existence boys"!

Now wether or not it *has* to be the God of Christianity, i couldn't say. I'd really have to see the arguments for that. But my own feelings (without looking to deeply at the arguments) tell me that it would not have to be. I mean could it not also be the God of Islam or Judaism?

I would also add that if one accepts that a first cause is required then we've basicaly just given the green light to the basic cosmological position of the theist for the last 3000 years. Again not a proof of any kind just a good reason for someone not to dismiss the theists position out of hand.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Orbital ]</p>

Kassiana

Rimstalker:
Did Ed "demonstrate" that only the Xian god could cause the universe?

Kass:
As I recall from following it, Ed couldn't demonstrate anything, much less that his God or my Goddesses or a small dog "caused" the universe.

Rim continues:
Did I and the other atheists become "frustrated" when we were "unable to refute" his arguments, and did this subsequently cause us to ignore him? Or was it simply that Ed was rtefusing to acknowledge our refutations?

Kass:
How can anyone refute what hasn't been proven, merely asserted? Ed at best merely asserted that what he said was proven and that others who disagreed with him couldn't refute what he said.

Rim cont'd.:
Did Ed adequately defend his position against our counter-arguments, or did he simply redirect from the actual subject of discussion, digress off-topic from the subject of the thread and the forum in an attempt to evade us, shift goalposts wildly by refusing to take an actual position, appeal to authority, age, and popularity, or engage in any other dishonest and frustrating debate tactics which would rightfully tick off anyone debating with him?

Kass:
The Ed I know did the dishonest and frustrating things. BTW, do you assume all believers in Deity here are Christian? I'll tell you one thing; I am not, and I know others who are not. I'm a neo-Pagan and I don't think any Gods necessarily "caused" the universe in any way, other than maybe setting off the initial Big Bang. And I'm not sure about that one.

GunnerJ

Orbital: As I said,this is not a debate thread. Actually, the debate went rather differently. I assumed that a cause is nessisary, and then made the case that even if this is so, the cause may have been some sort of "god," it in no way proves the existance of any specific religion's "God," and so the first cause argument, even if its initial premise (that the Universe must have a cause) is true, is worthless apologetically and theologically.

This thread was specifically constructed to collect opinions on the thread I linked to. It would be a sign of common courtesy for you to at least check on the link rather than to try and start a debate on the first cause in what I requested would not be a debate thread, based only upon what you think might have happened.

Kassiana: You hit the nail on the head with your "how can you refute what has never been proven;" this was one of my pet peeves throughout the debate. Thank you for the reply. And no, I do not assume that only Xians believe in a diety, but the theists we have on this board are most predominantly Xians.