Angel wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Angel wrote:
It is too late to edit my post so I will post a correction to my last post. I should've said that Haven was -required- to present an alternative worldview according to the debate terms. I say this to factor in Theopoesis's point about Haven not presenting enough about his secular worldview, at least at first. Perhaps in a future debate I can be involved as a third person for a 3 person debate to show why neither view, metaphysical naturalism and Theopoesis's epistemology, can stand alone as being valid and that parts of both views are needed to be a worldview that best lead to truth. Some things may even remain unknowable. I'm still formulating my view and have lots to
learn so we'll keep in touch.
A three person head to head debate is a fascinating idea. Do you think it's doable? I do still think just Haven and I bit off more than we could chew. I'm in agreement with you though that he came out on top in this one, so do want the chance to evaluate his position more clearly. A second person in dialogue would probably be beneficial for us both, but at the same time it seems it might also make things more chaotic.
Let me say that my judgement on who won is based on what was debated so far. Eventhough, I agree that there was an insufficient amount of rebuttal posts, but that was the way the debate was set up, and it played to Havoc's advantage. I'm sure had there been more rebuttal posts, then you certainly had a good chance to win, although I won't assume either way.
As far as the 3 person debate, I think it's doable but I don't know if it would be easy to do. The only reason I'd do it is not only because I have an alternative position (which would be the third position) but it's because my position is like an in-between or moderate position between you two so that's why I think it would be worth fitting it in together with your debate with
Havoc. I figured it could be done all at once because the alternative is that I'd debate you two separately, and while you may have SOME points to rebut, like the ones that are similar to an atheistic worldview, but we may end up agreeing on others, like on my views that may be compatible with the theistic worldview. So it may be not as much use to present all of my worldview to debate you guys separately, if only half of it (the theistic or atheistic related parts) will be addressed by either of you two. Perhaps we'll end up just having more to discuss than to actually debate. The only problem of course is that I don't feel like I'm ready to debate this (I'm still formulating my view and I have much more I want to learn) and I may even change my mind and go from agnostic to atheist or agnostic to theist depending on where reason leads me. I'm sure your debates/views will help and that of others.
I will send you a private message of something you might find useful.
Angel: Much of what I believe in terms of presuppositionalism was developed in the course of debates and discussions here, especially in debates/discussions with Slopeshoulder (now banned), nursebenjamin, and Jagella. Perhaps, even if you don't fully know what you believe, a discussion could serve as a catalyst.
I do recognize that it would be more difficult to pull off a three person debate, but I do see your point as to why the three of us might be beneficial. If Haven is interested, maybe we could post in the "open dialogue" subforum (if the mods let us do more than "one on one" discussion). Or we could do a "head to head debate" that is more of a round table: what does A think about x, then everyone responds. Then what does B think about x, and everyone responds, etc.
I've only got a few weeks before the semester is in full swing and i'm reading 3 books a week, so we'll see what Haven thinks.
oh, yeah, by the way. It's
Haven, not Havoc. He's brought about very little Havoc in his life, I would suspect. definitely not a villainous guy, from the look of it.
), no word limit, no source requirements (although sources are always helpful). What do you think?
.
