Instigator / Con
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Topic

Your best argument for any person to be a theist .

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's fifth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
25,566
Contender / Pro
1662
rating
15
debates
90.0%
won
Description
~ 782 / 5,000

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?

Let's see.

Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1
Con
What is your best argument to be a theist?
Pro
x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • 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.


Round 2
Con
The burden of proof is on the positive claim maker.

What is your best argument?

Pro
Overview
  • 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. 

x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • 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. 

I. Argument
  • 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. 


Round 3
Con
"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."

Is your point here about evidence or something?

"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 "

What is your point with all this?

" I emphasize that for an argument to be the best theistic argument it must successfully indicate the plausibility of a theistic view. "

Let's get a refresher on theism. For instance, church folks , religious folks don't focus their efforts on plausibility.

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?

See this is where I thought you get trapped. Trying to argue rationality into a faith. Doing that is what convinces , converts people to atheism, the exact opposite.


Pro
Overview
  • 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. 

x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Dropped. Extend. 

I. Argument
  • 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. 


Round 4
Con
"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. "

Right, your best argument. So it's my position to poke holes in it wherever it's not strong enough to hold solid and say try again. All in the Socratic method.
I don't necessarily have to suggest for you, a better argument, that's your burden.
But for the sake of education, by the end of this debate, I will put forth the one and only argument for anybody.

The keyword there is anybody.

Let's continue with what you got.

"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 questioning not rejecting?

If I ask you, how did something really happen I'm rejecting your initial explanation.

"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. "

Wow, you answered none of the questions. This debate goes no further until you answer these questions.

You say none of this is a response. I don't know what definition you're using but when I act based on what you do, that's a response.

When you shoot a jab and I duck, it's a response. You're mixing response with a counter move or counter argument in this case.

Now you didn't answer the questions which is called evading. People evade a question in court often to avoid incrimination.

That means the rebuttal is not necessarily always in the question but in the answer you give causing you to commit seppuku in argumentative terms .

I think you're that smart and you know this is what you're doing.

If you want to be honest with direct answers, you will have to face self refutation.

Now I'll let all the other questions slide but here's one that's like the meat and potatoes.


"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?"

In other words, what you did not cover in your points is what you should be arguing for .

Why should I or what is your argument for believing, accepting the supernatural where plausible reasoning and science cannot explain nor help me understand?

If you can't give an argument for that, you haven't covered all bases, it's not the best as that would be what the best is .

The best means it can't get no better. It's sufficient, it's substantial. You have not substantiated your position.

Put it this way, if I was going to be converted to a theist and I had this questions that were asked of you in this debate, you didn't answer them, somebody else comes along, answers them, I convert, who had the best argument?

See , if you know what you're talking about, you can answer the questions, no problem and they'd stand irrefutable.

But when you haven't developed enough regarding your position, it can easily fall apart when questioned (rejected), not so easily accepted as the gospel.

Then you throw a red herring, get evasive and try to switch it around.

That question is very important because it is something you did not cover.

Having a belief system particularly about the supernatural, things are accepted on faith , not on plausibility.

That's what it appears all you have an argument for is some level of rationality like that's all there is.

Again, the opposite effect is likely with a conversion to atheism or agnosticism. The more you talk about plausibility, the more questions creating the hesitation to accepting theism.

You get to a point where you've done so much talking about what makes sense to the natural world, you're building an argument focusing on the natural world the way it works. Building an argument for the natural world, not the supernatural one .

What do you think missionaries, preachers, Jehovah witnesses, Ministers do?

They don't argue a bunch of logic to people. It's not going to take that. We're beyond that .

Since you had a gripe about counter statements, there, a dissertation.

Now try better next round.

Pro
Forfeited
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet