Given that I am stuck in a hospital with a lot of time on my hands ( as well as other parts ) I am interested in having a meaningful one on one discussion with a theist. I do not care for debate as I agree with DAWKINS THAT THE LIMITING FACTORS that define debate also prohibit dialectic advance and discovery. The purpose of such dialogue is to understand why there is a belief in god, whether it is rational and finally whether the propositional claim made from the belief that there is a god is valid. I will state that my atheism is subject to defeat with any sufficient body of evidence that would obtain justified true belief. I am not interested in modal logic apart from it as a need to determine the validity or flaw of a claim or proposition. My approach would be inclusive of philosophical, scientific and scriptural claims by theism. Anyone interested please submit a resume to my hospital room as well as a generous amount of blood platelets.

This thread is the second private 1 on 1 between myself and Jean Chauvin.

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

This thread is a private 1 on 1 between myself and Jean Chauvin.

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

This thread is a private 1 on 1 between myself and Mr_Metaphysics.

That is, if he ever shows up....

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

This thread is a private 1 on 1 between myself and caposkia.

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

Preface:

Disclaimer:

Above all, the title assertion statement ("evolution proves god&quot is untrue, ignorant, and dishonest, and any argument for it is necessarily also qualified by those evaluations.  This debate is intended to be educational- not of the assertion, but of apologetic tactics, and to provide debate practice.  The title premise of the Theist position taken (the assertion) is recognized by both parties to be patently false (and beyond that, idiotic), particularly by the party presenting it (myself)- as such, it is hereby disclaimed (not in copyright, but in principle), and to be known that the presentation herein is presented as neither honest nor rational, but an emulation of apologetics for the purposes stated.

Conditional release:

Both posters, by posting, hereby attest to their respective copyrights to the material posted with the exception of accredited excerpts from other sources (those not belonging to the posters) used within these posts under fair use.

PEANUT GALLERY FOR THIS THREAD IS HERE: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19473

Okay, since I am not being allowed a topic in the debate forum, I will post my argument here and I am simply going to ignore everyone who responds except for Cpt_pineapple.  

Please keep posts under 500 words.

TERMS DEFINED:

God = Intelligent being who must exist by metaphysical necessity.  From his metaphysical necessity, he must also be (a) eternal, (b) the sufficient reason for his own existence, (c) theoretically unable to improve upon. 

Laws of logic - principles which govern the content of our discourse and dictate proper thinking; the most obvious is the law of non-contradiction (A v ~A).

Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances.

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to forego expanding the argument using the rules of propositional logic such as conjunction, modus ponens, etc. 

Marquis asked me to open this topic.  Both Marquis and Luminon have been granted access to this forum.  Nobody else except mods are capable of posting here.. 

Here is the peanut gallery thread for this discussion: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19372

Welcome to semi-formal, peer-reviewed debate between myself and Eloise. To start things off, I am simply going to go over the format and rules for the debate for the sake of the reader:

THE FORMAT

The debate will consist of opening statements by Eloise and myself, detailing our worldviews, the evidence for our worldviews, and our reasons and evidence for finding atheism / theism (respectively) fallacious / irrational.

Each opponent will then write a rebuttal to the opening statement, and their opponent will write a response to this rebuttal. Opponents will then rebut and counter-rebut 4 more times.

DeludedGod and Hambydammit have agreed to be an impartial, credible peer-reviewing body during the debate. As such, the debate will be paused twice for them to review the arguments leveled so far, pull-apart the statements of Eloise and myself and examine their veracity, and state their opinion as to who has the stronger position based on what they've reviewed.

After the final rebuttal is posted, the peer reviewers will weigh-in with concluding statements regarding the strengths / weaknesses of the debating positions, an encapsulation of their own thoughts on the issues raised here, and a mutual decision of whom they feel won the debate.

A visual idea of what the debate will look like: