[IronMan]

We will absolutely not debate Epicurus' problem of evil in a registrations thread.

We will debate it in the thread dedicated to Epicurus' Problem of Evil.

[M.C]

Guys, remember to read the rules, which can be found in the sticky in this section. Posting this in here to not disrupt that thread.

I removed a few posts from the debate that IM started above, as they did not qualify to be posted in the debate. Nothing off topic, no throw in posts, no simply observations. If you post in a thread, you need to debate it in an in-depth manner, take an example of how IM and Liddell are debating, or other threads, otherwise it's a regular discussion thread and could be posted elsewhere, like in the lounge. This place is for in depth debate.

Thanks.

[xeberus]

Well Ironman, god is beyond our grasp. We can set definitions about what we think or what we think should mean "all knowing". But I'll ask you this, does free will exist?

Perhaps there is no future. Nothing beyond what we choose for ourselves. In a universe where god gave us "free will" it would be impossible to see our future choices. Because if we choose this or that, than it would all be set in stone. We'd be as robots in gods eyes. Maybe she left it to us to decide such things, without an astrix next to it saying all choice is predictable or knowable. Can god create a stone she cannot lift? Yes and no.

[HexRei]

Originally Posted by M.C

Guys, remember to read the rules, which can be found in the sticky in this section. Posting this in here to not disrupt that thread.

I removed a few posts from the debate that IM started above, as they did not qualify to be posted in the debate. Nothing off topic, no throw in posts, no simply observations. If you post in a thread, you need to debate it in an in-depth manner, take an example of how IM and Liddell are debating, or other threads, otherwise it's a regular discussion thread and could be posted elsewhere, like in the lounge. This place is for in depth debate.

Thanks.

I honestly didn't realize this meant we couldn't comment on one element of an argument. I think you're going to end up with a fairly stifled debate if someone is obligated to address every component of an argument, that simply is not a feasible proposition as debates tend to grow like a branch or root system and after the first page the idea of debating every single element of the argument is impossible.

and honestly i think the epicurus thread is a fairly simple concept compared to some debates that would become radically splintered in just a few posts.

[M.C]

You can comment on 1 aspect of it of course, but putting in a couple of sentences is not a full debate stance, that's the kind of comment used in other regular discussion topics.

This section is meant for in depth debate, for those who want to not have a simple discussion but make clear, detailed posts about their opinion. If someone can't put a lot of detail in their opinion or post, then it will be removed.

You can definitely debate only 1 part of it, so long as it's explained and groomed in detail. That's one of the major differences from this section and a normal discussion.

[HexRei]

I still don't really comprehend the standard here, as the posts that were deleted were well over two sentences. How much detail is actually required to avoid having one's post deleted? Do we need to link sources or...? I can understand deleting a silly post but making a single concise point should still be allowed imo. I was respond directly to a point made by another poster.

[xeberus]

Originally Posted by HexRei

I honestly didn't realize this meant we couldn't comment on one element of an argument. I think you're going to end up with a fairly stifled debate if someone is obligated to address every component of an argument, that simply is not a feasible proposition as debates tend to grow like a branch or root system and after the first page the idea of debating every single element of the argument is impossible.

and honestly i think the epicurus thread is a fairly simple concept compared to some debates that would become radically splintered in just a few posts.

That and I tried as a christian. But you have to realize some things like the epicurus argument is heavily slated in the atheists favor. I can only defend against atheism as good as ive been defended against. And most of the arguments that come about by atheists via logical thought put the christians at a disadvantage. Rational thought is not a strong point for the majority of theist philosophy.

[HexRei]

See, I wouldn't call that slanting exactly. Debate hinges on rules of logic and logic depends on rationality and as you say, the major theistic philosophies aren't often all that rational. But that doesn't mean the argument is slanted... generally it just means that the particular philosophical stance can't be justified through rational/logical means, which is why they call it faith. For better or for worse.

[Dtwizzy2k5]

Put me down as atheist

[hadoq]

down as deist

I'm a believer for sure