I couldn't have done this debate because I don't know enough about the topic.
Your opponent has to prove that something outside the Bible exists, but they can't use anything outside the Bible as evidence? That don't make no kinda sense.
Wouldn't that make all of us gods? When I make a beef stew, I decide that it will exist. If I decide not to make a beef stew, then I've decided it won't exist. So by that definition, am I a god?
>1. Presuppositional apologetics: "The Bible is true because God inspired it, and we know God exists because the Bible says so."
That's a misrepresentation of presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalists think God is necessary for intelligibility. It isn't because the Bible says so that presuppositional apologists think God exists. It's because God exist before anything else (including the Bible) makes sense. Or, in other words, they believe in God because of the impossibility of the contrary.
What is atheist logic?
Instead of being Con on the resolution, "A Maximally Great Being Doesn't Exist," why not be Pro on the resolution, "A Maximally Great Being Exists"?
You're spoiling the debate.
The set up for this debate seems to pit one extreme against another extreme - impossibility or necessity. Why not a middle ground, like, "It's either likely or unlikely that Jesus rose from the dead"?
Do you see a difference between being "all powerful" and having "maximum power"?
I think you at least need some context. Secondary to what? Food? Family? Good health?
I agree with faux law. I sometimes characterize my own view as "theistic evolution," but it differs from the typical definition I hear all the time.
You have spread yourself kind of thin. I noticed you're involved in multiple debates at the same time. At least this one has a short character limit.
Wunderbar. Thank you. I'll have my opening posted today.
Does anybody know whether the character count includes spaces?
Hi Lunatic! I know! It's crazy to think how much time has passed since peak DDO.
Okay, I'm willing to do the debate, but I'd be playing devil's advocate. I want to run a couple of arguments by you to see what you will say. I have some experience debating on DDO back in the day. I had about 90 something debates. I wouldn't count all of them since my opponent bailed on some, and some were just silly. But there were at least ten good debates. As far as my knowledge of the subject, I'm not expert. I'm not a physicist or anything. But I have read some stuff, and I watch a lot of science YouTube channels.
I have a few questions about your set up.
First, do you want your opponent to grant that the universe is fine-tuned and just debate the best explanation for the fine-tuning? Or can they also challenge whether the universe is fine-tuned?
Second, are 4 and 5 above meant to be part of your argument, or are they just stand alone definitions? They look like definitions because I don't see how they fit in the argument.
Third, usually when the subject of fine-tuning comes up, people are talking about the values of the constants of the universe having to be finely tuned. While granting the possibility that the laws could be different as well, they usually want to look at how universes would be different if the laws were the same, but the constants were different. This is usually just a convenience for talking about the subject. Do you really just want to talk about differences in the laws? If so, could you explain what it would mean for laws to fall within a range?
Oh, one other thing about sources. I was arguing with a friend one time, and she cited three sources to back up her point of view. When I looked at them, they all turned out to be articles written to comment on the same study. So in reality, she only had one source--that one study. But she seemed to think she had three independent sources.
My only advice is to actually look at every source your opponent cites. There have been lots of times when I've done that and found that the source doesn't say what my opponent seem to think it said.
My suspicion is that this modal ontological argument is probably sound, but I don't think there's any non-question-begging way to SHOW that it's sound. I might've accepted the debate anyway. At the very least, it's an interesting thing to think about.
