This is the thread devoted to the debate between Ross and Mars, after some discussion over the resolution in this thread. The resolution for this debate is: "Can God's existence be proven?"

Mars will be arguing the affirmative in a series of propositions and Ross will be arguing against the propositions.

The rules for the debate are as follows:

1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. Mars has a maximum of 18 propositions to make his case. After each proposition Mars presents Ross will be asked to either concede the proposition, to ask for proof, or to rebut the proposition. In the case that Ross and Mars disagree over the status (ie, conceded, rebutted) of a proposition the matter will be decided one or more of the predetermined voters. After their determination the participants must act in accord with their decision.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

PROP I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.

MarsWrote:
PROP I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.

Before we continue, I want you to define composition, geometry, and arrangement of parts.

When I argued that graphic exhibits this, you said CGA is the essence of an object. However, if this is true, how can you use the CGA of a stop sign to compare it to the CGA of any other object (in order to show it was intelligently designed).

Is CGA a trait in objects or a description of the object itself?

RostradamusWrote:
[t]MarsWrote:
PROP I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena. [/t]
Before we continue, I want you to define composition, geometry, and arrangement of parts.

When I argued that graphic exhibits this, you said CGA is the essence of an object. However, if this is true, how can you use the CGA of a stop sign to compare it to the CGA of any other object (in order to show it was intelligently designed).

Is CGA a trait in objects or a description of the object itself?

CGA is the essense of an object, yes a tautology.

Alright, I concede the point that an object A (with a CGA essence) intelligently designed was not designed from insensate phenomena.

Please note, however, that if we define CGA as an essence as opposed to trait, then you cannot make a statement like "both Stop-signs and Object X contain/possess CGA."

A trait can be shared between objects, essence can not.

PROP II; Abiogenesis is a phenomena of intelligent design.

I concede...

an object A (with a CGA essence) intelligently designed was not designed from insensate phenomena.

Notice what you said;

"an object .... designed was not designed...."

You cannot remove intelligence from design.

so you essensially said;

"an object .... intelligently designed was not intelligently designed...."


I can only guess your trying to equivocate "insensate phenomena" with "phenomena".



Possibly I was hasty in puting another proposition up. If you do not concede the whole proposition then Jesse could you delete the second prop. The rules are that you cannot slip by with a partial concesion... it has to be all or none. If you force me to rewrite the proposition and therefore get a stike, more power to you.

However you need to explicitly concede the proposition or explicitly rebuttle the part you do not concede.

MarsWrote:

I concede...



an object A (with a CGA essence) intelligently designed was not designed from insensate phenomena.

Notice what you said;



"an object .... designed was not designed...."



You cannot remove intelligence from design.



so you essensially said;



"an object .... intelligently designed was not intelligently designed...."





I can only guess your trying to equivocate "insensate phenomena" with "phenomena".







Possibly I was hasty in puting another proposition up. If you do not concede the whole proposition then Jesse could you delete the second prop. The rules are that you cannot slip by with a partial concesion... it has to be all or none. If you force me to rewrite the proposition and therefore get a stike, more power to you.



However you need to explicitly concede the proposition or explicitly rebuttle the part you do not concede.

Please use the whole quote:

"an object intelligently designed was not designed by insensate phenomena . I use the word "design" only to reference the originator.

I already said that I concede as long as you realize that CGA cannot be considered a trait that can be shared. If CGA is an essence, that essence is unique to each person.

However, if you are just saying "stoplight=CGA" and "CGA is intelligently designed" then I concede.

RostradamusWrote:
[t]MarsWrote:

I concede...

an object A (with a CGA essence) intelligently designed was not designed from insensate phenomena.

Notice what you said;

"an object .... designed was not designed...."

You cannot remove intelligence from design.

so you essensially said;

"an object .... intelligently designed was not intelligently designed...."

I can only guess your trying to equivocate "insensate phenomena" with "phenomena".

Possibly I was hasty in puting another proposition up. If you do not concede the whole proposition then Jesse could you delete the second prop. The rules are that you cannot slip by with a partial concesion... it has to be all or none. If you force me to rewrite the proposition and therefore get a stike, more power to you.

However you need to explicitly concede the proposition or explicitly rebuttle the part you do not concede.[/t]
Please use the whole quote:

"an object intelligently designed was not designed by insensate phenomena . I use the word "design" only to reference the originator.

I already said that I concede as long as you realize that CGA cannot be considered a trait that can be shared. If CGA is an essence, that essence is unique to each person.

However, if you are just saying "stoplight=CGA" and "CGA is intelligently designed" then I concede.

Ok, so you concede PROP I...

It's not my duty to correct your rhetorical form... I just wanted to make sure you were not playing sophistry and/or that you know "designed" cannot be connected to "insensate".

What you should have said without confusion is "formed" as the original proposition stated.

"an object intelligently designed was not FORMED by insensate phenomena."

Trust me, this is a big difference... and conveintly is not a contradiction.


OK, carry on to PROP II.

Correct, I concede under the conditions specified in my last post.

I will happily work on your second proposition the moment you provide an argument for it.

Wait one second; your version says;

"was not"

Mine says;

"does not"


Do you mean to differ in this respect, or did you mean the same thing?

RostradamusWrote:
I will happily work on your second proposition the moment you provide an argument for it.

Intelligent beings specifically humans, have developed abiogenic components in their labs. It is highly probable human developed abiogenesis in labs will one day be able to develop living organisms.

MarsWrote:
Wait one second; your version says;



"was not"



Mine says;



"does not"





Do you mean to differ in this respect, or did you mean the same thing?

It means I used different diction.

MarsWrote:

[t]RostradamusWrote:
I will happily work on your second proposition the moment you provide an argument for it.[/t]

Intelligent beings specifically humans, have developed abiogenic components in their labs. It is highly probable human developed abiogenesis in labs will one day be able to develop living organisms.

Lordy.....

Well, upon first read I was trying to figure out whose side you were helping.

I'm pretty sure you are arguing for your side of it. Not positive.

First off, to develop "abiogenesis" means creating an environment and then letting the components come about naturally. Therefore, if humans could "develop" abiogenesis, then we will have PROVEN that abiogenesis is possible via insensate phenomena.

Secondly, assuming by "abiogenesis" you just mean life in general, you still haven't made a point. The fact that WE POSSIBLY MAY ONE DAY make life in no way means life started out that way. In fact, it is possible we will figure out an abiogenesis technique that works but WASN'T HOW LIFE ACTUALLY ORIGINATED. Showing abiogenesis itself isn't enough, you need to show the preconditions match those of primitive earth. If you are using an experimental set up to match those preconditions in order to create life, you have just made my argument for me.

RostradamusWrote:
[t]MarsWrote:
Wait one second; your version says;

"was not"

Mine says;

"does not"

Do you mean to differ in this respect, or did you mean the same thing?[/t]
It means I used different diction.

As long as it is ment to mean the same... carry on.

RostradamusWrote:
[t]MarsWrote:
[t]RostradamusWrote:
I will happily work on your second proposition the moment you provide an argument for it.[/t]
Intelligent beings specifically humans, have developed abiogenic components in their labs. It is highly probable human developed abiogenesis in labs will one day be able to develop living organisms.[/t]
Lordy.....

Well, upon first read I was trying to figure out whose side you were helping.

I'm pretty sure you are arguing for your side of it. Not positive.

First off, to develop "abiogenesis" means creating an environment and then letting the components come about naturally. Therefore, if humans could "develop" abiogenesis, then we will have PROVEN that abiogenesis is possible via insensate phenomena.

Secondly, assuming by "abiogenesis" you just mean life in general, you still haven't made a point. The fact that WE POSSIBLY MAY ONE DAY make life in no way means life started out that way. In fact, it is possible we will figure out an abiogenesis technique that works but WASN'T HOW LIFE ACTUALLY ORIGINATED. Showing abiogenesis itself isn't enough, you need to show the preconditions match those of primitive earth. If you are using an experimental set up to match those preconditions in order to create life, you have just made my argument for me.

The only alternative to abiogenesis is ex nihilo... surely your not going to argue for such.

Are you equivocating "insensate phenomena" with phenomena?