DBT02: Call For Judges, Topic Suggestions
Posted in (A)Theist Debate League, DBT02, Debate on | 4 minutes | 7 Comments →
So JT Eberhard has agreed to an exchange. We are still working out the details of the exchange, but I’d like to go ahead and post everything we’ve exchanged in our emails so far, creating an absolutely transparent public record of all dialog (because it’s a good practice in general, but also to give a certain hater even less to hate on). It began with this post on JT’s blog, where he said he was looking for “someone to exchange emails with on the existence of God.” I shot him an email, and here was his first response:
Accepted (was hoping for you or Jayman). If we’re doing the existence of God, you wanna go first?
I replied,
I was just thinking about that. Why don’t we try thinking outside the box a little bit? I’ve seen so many of these things go down before, we’re both a little off the beaten path as far as (a)theists go… I think atheists get off too easy, because they have a negative position. I’d like to see an atheist take up a positive case for once, you know what I mean?
…to which JT replied,
What would a positive case for the non-existence of something look like? The best I can think of is, “I know of no evidence to support the existence of this thing.” What more could someone possibly do? If I need to lead off with my positive case, that would be my opening. This is why in structured debate the affirmative side always leads, otherwise the negative side would stand up, say they know of no evidence to support the opposing side, and sit down. If you’re the one who believes the thing exists, shouldn’t it be on you to provide whatever evidence has convinced you (and supposedly whatever evidence you think should convince me)? I guess a parallel would be this: what if I asked you to provide a positive case for why you aren’t a thief? How would you go about it?
…and that’s where the email chain stops. To reply, I understand the burden of proof, and I understand how structured debates go. I get that the affirmative side goes first; that’s why I’m asking you to man up and affirm something! I mean, how hard is it to just draw a line in the sand and say, “Oh, I don’t believe that,” or, “Oh, there’s no evidence.”
BOOORRIINNNNNNG!
Seriously, people. Atheism has got to be the least intellectually challenging position out there. As Descartes demonstrated, one can doubt anything except their own mind. Love ’em or hate ’em, at least YEC’s have the guts to affirm something. I mean, I’ll go the typical route if that’s what JT really wants to do. After all, I responded to his challenge, but let’s give the people a show.
As for the thief question, well… it’s pretty simple. I’d explain all the damage that being a thief typically entails, then I’d mount a value-driven case explaining why I don’t do that. I’m not asking JT to make a positive case for the non-existence of God. There are all sorts of angles JT could approach if he thinks creatively. For example, JT believes in matter and the laws of physics. He could mount a positive case arguing for the explanatory power thereof, and I could challenge that.
This is where you, dear readers, come into play. Any ideas? What would you like to see us debate? Also, I’m looking for three judges again: one atheist, one theist, one agnostic. Don’t be shy. So far I’m getting the feeling that ours will be more like an informal letter exchange, so don’t worry about questions pertaining to format, time constraints or structure, as we’re just sorta winging it for now.
If this *MUST* be the typical, played-out “the theist argues for God and the atheist just doubts,” then, so be it. If JT wants to go that route then I’ll just write an opening letter explaining why I believe what I believe, and we can go from there.
joseph
says...I think unless there is some agreement on the definition of God (Biblical, the Philosopher’s God, Epicurean Gods, Pantheistic gods) and a brief definition of terminology (for example is an omniscient god logically capable of knowing future events, or not) then JT Eberhard (that must be a difficult surname in high school) will waste a lot of words criticising beliefs you don’t hold. On the other hand if there is no word limit that is not such an issue.
That said I wouldn’t mind an attempt at a positive case being made first.
What to debate, the Cosmological Argument!
Well it does claim to be simpler than theism (not that that helps me understand Stephen Hawking’s mathematic manifold ideas).
Bret
says...I would still like to see a debate on dualism. Doing something outside of the typical debate format is an excellent idea. I also think that allowing the incorporation of images or charts into the debate could really add to it. Word limits are great, but a discussion format could be interesting as well. A predetermined time involving instant messaging? I don’t know, debates seem to get significantly more interesting when debaters can question one another or stop one another from going off on a tangent when one of them has misinterpreted the other’s argument. Even if it turns out to be a traditional debate, I look forward to following along.
Garren
says...I. If theistic belief can be well-explained without involving supernatural entities, then (by Occam’s Razor) such explanations are preferable.
II. Theistic belief can be well-explained without involving supernatural entities.
III. Naturalistic explanations of theistic belief are preferable.
jason
says...objective morality is one topic many atheists affirm all the time. of course, there’s a long way between affirmation and warranted belief. if mr. eberhard is a proponent of such a position, how about:
given atheism, what valid justification is there for nonrelative morality?
one of my personal favorites.
cl
says...joseph,
I imagine we’ll address first cause arguments, but I don’t see them being the focus.
Bret,
You and me both. Like I said last time you mentioned it, I’ve offered to debate Ebonmuse (Adam Lee) on his much-touted “Ghost In The Machine” essay. Help me secure an opponent and I’ll gladly do a dualism debate!
Garren,
To that I say,
Or, even better:
jason,
For whatever reason, I really don’t like talking to atheists about morality, for the same reasons they often dislike talking to theists about faith. Most atheists don’t realize they endorse that which they condemn when the subject matter turns to morality. Even though I believe in eternity I’ve got better things to do with my time.
I appreciate the input, though… I’ll definitely cover some morality in my opening statements, I hope you’ll like where I go with it.
Peter Hurford
says...The double negative of II bothers me, because I don’t think III follows unless it is also true that
IIb. Non-naturalistic explanations of the observable universe do explain this universe better than naturalistic explanations.
Peter Hurford
says...Also, I feel like all the debates I have with you have been me establishing a positive case for atheism and you explaining why they fail to knock Christianity out. I don’t currently recall us ever arguing in reverse, with you demonstrating Christianity (or generic theism) and me attempting to knock you out. I’d like to do that, sometime.