lol. you're connecting the two again.... <shakes finger>.
The skill in making an argument for say, the gene-centric view of natural selection or the big bang to a conference or in a classroom is far, far removed from what is needed for the general population.
I doubt Hawking could sell ice cream on a hot day .. is he poor at laying out an argument?

You cannot establish the absence of a cause, but you can establish that causes are not always necessary. Which is all that is really needed to break down his first premise. Or at least for him to justify his position.

Most of the time he offers very little justification in his debates, you are right. But I see that as a fault of the opponent. It is his job to force Craig to justify his premises in such a forum.

I doubt he will. Harris appeals too much on emotional reactions of people, like stating "Is the 10 commandments really the best". He will probably do what he normally does in debates. But I suspect that him and Craig will definitely be a more lively one.

Personally I have more hope for Krauss. Although I am not a fan of him (and his impossible arrogance) I think that he understands the underlying concepts of at least the KCA, and is very good at getting his point across to people that might not understand all that he does.

You might be right, but there are some who definitely are. I feel the Harris debate will be a good example of this. Harris is just as good at "selling" his position as Craig is. Now whether or not he takes the time to prepare will determine the "outcome" of the debate.

first, this gave me a good laugh, ty.

Ok, I do agree with you to an extent. But I do think that they are more closely related than you are willing to admit here.

Doesn't matter what the topic is. The person that "wins" vs Craig in a general public debate will have to sell more snakeoil.
The person the beats Sarah Pallin for the nomination will have to sell more snakeoil.
It's the nature of the format not the subject matter.

Good news thought is that in this sort of forum we differentiate between the superficial and the substance. So although the "audience" might see one "winner" we can still dissect the debate and declare a different winner. Which is why I think it is still fun to watch these and discuss them here.

If you haven't done anything then I apologize. But I've been told that "a few" mods have left such comments on my account, and since this is the forum where the majority of my posts are made, and you would at least seem to be the only mod in RGT that would make such comments about me. But again, I haven't actually seen the comments or who wrote them, I've just assumed it was highly likely one of them was you. If it wasn't - sorry.

Well I have - back when that idiot ajmargarine was a mod though and infracted me for some totally nonsensical reason.

Anyway, Jib or NR feel free to reply to this. If science is on such unsure footing IYO, then how can you simultaneously be so proud and confident in your beliefs about god that are less than science?

I don't have a more primitive assumption yet, in fact I (like you) think we're unlikely to ever find one - hence the moniker unprovable rather than unproved.

There is place to introduce doubt - if particles are suddenly observed to travel faster than light, for example. Nonetheless, this part of your argument is clearly an appeal to lack of imagination, IMO which seems unnecessary - you think it's an assumption and you think it can never be proved. Your reluctance to call it an unprovable assumption is perhaps understandable on the aesthetic grounds you mention,but it's such an odd use of language. Surely it's a bit strong to label me bizarre fore calling something which cannot be proved unprovable?

You haven't dealt with induction yet.

Aren't all debates just stalemates until someone proves God does or doesn't exist. Like luckyme said its all snake oil.

No, the burden of proof lies on one side every debate and every debate that side fails to satisfy its burden of proof.

So you can prove to me there is no creator of the universe.

...what?

I don't need to be able to prove no unicorns exist in order to make someone who believes they do into a fool in a debate. The burden on them is to support their positive belief in something, not to shift the focus and ask their opponent to prove the negative.

If you want me to believe this universe (existence) wasn't or was created by a creator you have to prove to me it. Otherwise idk.

Dude, all you're doing is dishonestly shifting the burden of proof.

I can't prove the flying spaghetti monster exists, but you can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

Therefore the existence of the flying spaghetti monster is 50/50 according to your thinking? Any debate on the subject would result in a tie or "stalemate"? Makes no sense.

Its not dishonest. I dont know if this universe was created by a creator or not and till i do i don't know.

And you don't know if the universe was created by FSM or not. Therefore it's 50/50, he either made the universe or he didn't.

No I won't say 50/50 for the FSM more like 0.

As for a possible creator of the universe i wouldn't like to give odds but i think its possible.

LOL wtf. You are all over the ****ing map here bro.

Not really my map hasn't changed in years.

you're a weird guy

True.

But as far as i can see there are three options (there might be more but i can t see them).

Either something created existence.

Existence created itself.

Existence always was in some way.


Its a toss up.


If you want to say the first one is an impossibility or nonsense,ok.

If that "something" that created existence exists, then #1 is contained in #2 or #3 and isn't really an option.

I'm not disputing that a god could exist. I'm disputing your claim that a debate could not be won on the subject because we don't *know* the exact answer.

We don't *know* the exact answer as to whether there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun. That doesn't mean the probability of it existing is 50% or that a debate regarding the subject would always be a tie.

The people who hold a positive belief in such an unproven and unsupported anomaly bear the burden of supporting their position first. Once those people were to satisfy this burden of proof, only then would a skeptic need to provide evidence of it not existing.

Therefore, in a debate, it would seem those who hold a positive belief in such anomalous ideas have to satisfy this burden of proof, or they would have lost the debate by default.

This is what goes on in a debate about god. You cannot just skip over the fact the people who hold positive beliefs about these ideas/beings must satisfy their burden first. Simply saying "you can't disprove my positive assertions" does not in turn force a tie - it is only a further admittance that they could not satisfy the burden that initially falls upon them.

Either way i dont know if the universe or our existence was created.

I just meant the debate about whether or not a creator created the universe is a stalemate.

And sense most of these debates are about the cosmological God either side thats making a positive arguments needs proof. I have none.

I agree if someone argues in the positive they should show proof.