Your best argument for any person to be a theist .
Waiting for the instigator's fifth argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to be a theist?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for yourself, myself, anybody else to be a theist?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?
Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.
- Since this is a 5 round debate, I will take the round to interpret the resolution and lay some essential groundwork, as this debate is unorthodox and needs a standard by which we can evaluate the winner or loser respectively.
- The resolution proposes "your best argument for any person to be a theist." I suggest the most reasonable way to evaluate this is for me to play the advocate role of the mentioned position and, as stated, simply present what I believe to be my best argument for the topic.
- Mall shall propose an argument that is supposedly better than my argument and we shall engage with one another in deliberation upon which argument is indeed, the best.
- I propose the debate shall be judged accordingly. Weighing my argument against whether or not Mall has demonstrated a better one.
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework.
- Dropped. Extend.
This is funny as all get out. The burden of proof is on the positive claim maker.
- No one is making a positive claim in this debate. The resolution is not even a proposition, (a statement that can be proven true or falsified). Instead, it states: "your best argument for any person to be a theist." So the object of the debate is the presentation of my best argument for such. To evaluate this, we can judge the debate on your critique of my argument with a better one. In essence, I propose a shared burden.
- The argument I propose for theism seeks to present theism as the most plausible view explaining the origin of the universe. Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities. An explanation for the origin of the universe in a supreme being is not necessary to indicate the truth of theism, but is a common theme in its line of argumentation. I will posit a modification of a theistic argument from the plausibility of design documented here by professor of philosophy Peter J. Kreeft. To quote the majority of his argument while abridging some aspects for better synthesis:
- p1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
- p2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
- p3. Chance is not a plausible explanation of such intelligible order.
- p4. Therefore the universe is more possibly the product of intelligent design.
- p5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
- c. Therefore the universe is more possibly the product of an intelligent Designer.
- Krerft deductively posits a necessary being, God, that exists as the predicate to our known ad observable reality and is the fundamental intelligent designer of life as we perceive it. The premises are simple, the order we perceive can arise from either chance of the universe or a wilful act of design. I emphasize that for an argument to be the best theistic argument it must successfully indicate the plausibility of a theistic view. The argument from a conscious or intelligent design is capable of directly engaging with the theoretical or empirical foundations of other concepts such as evolution. This is why I state this as my best argument.
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no description specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework.
- Dropped. Extend.
- Con gives critique to my argument but has not shown a better one. As a reminder, we are debating whether my best argument is as such.
- Analyze Mall's rebuttal, he did not reject an single premise of the argument I proposed or explain why any of them are false. Extend my argument.
Is your point here about evidence or something?
- This is not a rebuttal or a rejection of any premise.
What is your point with all this?
- This is not a rebuttal or a rejection of any premise. The point is to create a deductive syllogism that indicates the plausibility of theism.
The question is, why should I have faith or what's the best argument on having faith in miracles, workings of a supreme deity, things beyond our understanding, reasoning , logic and such?
- None of this is a response, rebuttal, or a rejection of any premise of my argument.