Hm. I hate to say, but I do not think you've had a very strong start in this one.
Although the theist's argument was, for me, uninteresting, it was presented well and thoroughly. Likewise, the agnostic's argument began by establishing a common definition of terms, and from there presented some strong arguments. In your case, you open your debate with a refutation of arguments that have not yet been made; I am no debater, but to me, this is a very weak beginning, as it starts you out in a defensive position, and, worst of all, you are defending things which the readers have yet to even consider.
From there, your case is loaded with parable and exclamation, and then supported by mathematical set theory and computational complexity and a quote from Feynman that was about religion, not God per se.
Your essay bounces all over the place, and at no time that I saw does it pause to establish an actual case or coherence of any kind. To use a metaphor, the deist presented a plate of meat & potatoes; the agnostic presented a fine plate of pasta; and you presented a bowl of leftovers stew.
(Sorry.)
It would have been better if you had begun instead with the argument that, based solely upon our developing understanding of the natural universe, we can conclude that it is unlikely that any deities exist. i.e., that religion was born of a human need to understand natural phenomena, and as we develop a more complete understanding of those phenomena, we have come to see that lightning isn't the act of a vengeful god or gods, nor are floods or fires or drought. Begin there, and then close with the argument that, in the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to conclude evidence of absence. Establish the pattern, and then show the conclusion that can be reached from that pattern.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Although the theist's argument was, for me, uninteresting, it was presented well and thoroughly. Likewise, the agnostic's argument began by establishing a common definition of terms, and from there presented some strong arguments. In your case, you open your debate with a refutation of arguments that have not yet been made; I am no debater, but to me, this is a very weak beginning, as it starts you out in a defensive position, and, worst of all, you are defending things which the readers have yet to even consider.
From there, your case is loaded with parable and exclamation, and then supported by mathematical set theory and computational complexity and a quote from Feynman that was about religion, not God per se.
Your essay bounces all over the place, and at no time that I saw does it pause to establish an actual case or coherence of any kind. To use a metaphor, the deist presented a plate of meat & potatoes; the agnostic presented a fine plate of pasta; and you presented a bowl of leftovers stew.
(Sorry.)
It would have been better if you had begun instead with the argument that, based solely upon our developing understanding of the natural universe, we can conclude that it is unlikely that any deities exist. i.e., that religion was born of a human need to understand natural phenomena, and as we develop a more complete understanding of those phenomena, we have come to see that lightning isn't the act of a vengeful god or gods, nor are floods or fires or drought. Begin there, and then close with the argument that, in the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to conclude evidence of absence. Establish the pattern, and then show the conclusion that can be reached from that pattern.
no subject