Open Debate Challenge

[For_The_Kingdom]

.

Again, this is an open challenge to anyone who'd be interested in partaking in a moderated audio and/or video debate with me on any of the following subjects..

Kalam Cosmological Argument
Modal Ontological Argument
Resurrection of Jesus
Validity of the New Testament
Validity of Naturalism (natural evolution [macro])

This challenge has been open for at least 2 years, and no one has stepped up yet. We can post the segment on this great forum for all to see.

Don't you all speak at once.

[Divine Insight]

Resurrection of Jesus

What exactly would this debate entail?

We don't even have any evidence that Jesus had died during the unofficial non-Roman mob crucifixion described in the Gospel rumors.

So how can we talk about the resurrection of someone that we can't even be sure had died?

You'd need to explain more about the details of exactly what it is that you would like to debate?

If you're going to be using the Gospel rumors as your argument for the resurrection of Jesus then of course this is what the Gospel rumors claim. Who can argue with that?

This would be like debating whether Peter Pan actually went to Never Never Land. Well, duh? If we going to go by the story then he went. Period. What's to argue about?

[Divine Insight]

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

This is already incompatible with, and ignorant of, modern day physics.

Unless you want to ignore modern physics what's to debate?

[Divine Insight]

Modal Ontological Argument

The Modal Ontological Argument is based on the fallacious premise that if we can imagine a thought in our minds that does not appear to us to be self-contradicting, then whatever we have imagined must exist.

There is no credible evidence that such a philosophical position has any merit.

That basically ends that debate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Resurrection of Jesus

What exactly would this debate entail?

It would entail a discussion about the validity of the Resurrection.

We don't even have any evidence that Jesus had died during the unofficial non-Roman mob crucifixion described in the Gospel rumors.

Thus, the debate; because Christian apologists feel as if we DO have evidence that Jesus died and such.

So how can we talk about the resurrection of someone that we can't even be sure had died?

Ask that question at the debate and I'll be happy to provide an answer.

You'd need to explain more about the details of exactly what it is that you would like to debate?

I'd like to debate the validity of the Resurrection.

If you're going to be using the Gospel rumors as your argument for the resurrection of Jesus then of course this is what the Gospel rumors claim. Who can argue with that?

The question is; what reasons do we have that X is true, which is the most typical question pertaining to ANYTHING that is worthy of discussion.

This would be like debating whether Peter Pan actually went to Never Never Land. Well, duh? If we going to go by the story then he went. Period. What's to argue about?

Well, if I don't believe that he went, then there would be plenty to argue about.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

This is already incompatible with, and ignorant of, modern day physics.

Unless you want to ignore modern physics what's to debate?

You say ignore, I say disagree. Thus; the debate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Modal Ontological Argument

The Modal Ontological Argument is based on the fallacious premise that if we can imagine a thought in our minds that does not appear to us to be self-contradicting, then whatever we have imagined must exist.

No, it is that whatever we can imagine is possibly true (in some possible world). See that, you've been owned on the subject already.

Just imagine what an audio/video discussion would do

[Divine Insight]

We don't even have any evidence that Jesus had died during the unofficial non-Roman mob crucifixion described in the Gospel rumors.

Thus, the debate; because Christian apologists feel as if we DO have evidence that Jesus died and such.

But where do you get your evidence from? The Gospel stories themselves?

If so, that's a circular argument.

This would be like debating whether Peter Pan actually went to Never Never Land. Well, duh? If we going to go by the story then he went. Period. What's to argue about?

Well, if I don't believe that he went, then there would be plenty to argue about.

But what would you argue other than the stories must be wrong?

If I'm permitted to do that in the debate over the resurrection of Jesus then the debate is already over and I win. The stories are simply wrong. Period.

I don't need to accept the story's claims that Jesus died, much less that he rose from the dead.

If you're going to try to continue to make your arguments based on what the Gospels stories have to say you've already lost. You may as well just sit there and read the stories to yourself at that point because they would already be useless as evidence in the debate.

[Divine Insight]

Modal Ontological Argument

The Modal Ontological Argument is based on the fallacious premise that if we can imagine a thought in our minds that does not appear to us to be self-contradicting, then whatever we have imagined must exist.

No, it is that whatever we can imagine is possibly true (in some possible world). See that, you've been owned on the subject already.

Just imagine what an audio/video discussion would do

Hardly.

This whole topic is based on Modal Logic and modal logic is an abstract formalism created by men using axioms that they made up.

There is no reason that reality needs to conform to a man-made axiomatic formalism.

So you have already failed to understand the crux of my argument.

Just because something is axiomatically true in Model Logic does not mean that reality must obey man's logical inventions.

So there's no way you could use a Modal Ontological Argument to prove the existence of a God in any actual reality.

It's dead in the water before it even gets started.

[Bust Nak]

This challenge has been open for at least 2 years, and no one has stepped up yet.

Pretty sure rikuoamero took you up on that challenged and you bailed on him. What assurances do we have that you would bail out this time round?