Scotter's Debate Proposal: Scotter's Wager

[Antlerman]

Are we like violating the rules here or something? Shame on you... I mod thee! :offtopic:

 

Sorry!

I meant to say us..

[The-Captain]

Thats my view as well, existence precedes essence and all that.

 

I am unfamiliar with Sartre, me being an armchair philosopher and all. What is essence exactly? Is that what we call purpose? I know existence what is around us, be it objective or subjective.

 

Also, what is a good Sartre site that I can view to bone up on existentialism.

 

As I understand it essence describes our being, and possibly our purpose.

 

L'Existentialisme est un Humanisme would be a good starting point, not exactly definitive but is good if you're unfamiliar with the general idea.

 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...xist/sartre.htm

[The-Captain]

Sartre would be so proud of all you... LeslieHappyCry.gif

 

Don't we all just love the guy?

 

Probably one of the biggest influences on my world view, and also one of the things I just didn't get as a Christian.

 

Anyway, enough gushing...

[Ouroboros]

Actually what you're showing is that the definition of what "purpose" really means is complex enough to take one down many different paths of discussion. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're right, but only in one aspect. And it's good that you brought it up, because it shows that my arguments earlier also missed this part.

 

Purpose can be interpreted as: the intended functionality of something, even though it is not used for it as such as of now. A screwdriver used as an ice pick. It works, but it's full potential will only be realized when used as a screwdriver. (This is the definition I was going with)

 

Purpose as a realization of someones end-state. Or, your "purpose" is proven by the "providence" or destiny you become. If you become an unbeliever, and it was God's plan, this was God's purpose. (This is your take, which slightly different than mine, but extremely interesting...)

 

It does take us to a more important question then, what is purpose and how do you know what purpose humans are for, if they do have one? Do we know it by what we become, who we are and what we do, or by revelation from some prophets who write books and say "it is so"? Or is it a direct revelation to each individual, where God steps down from his throne and writes your purpose (calling) with fire on the wall?

 

Now this opened to another question, is the "purpose" we're talking about here, an individual purpose (or fulfillment of end-state of the individual person) or is it the purpose of whole humanity?

 

To many questions to answer before we even can begin to reason about the "wager"!

[Antlerman]

Thats my view as well, existence precedes essence and all that.

 

I am unfamiliar with Sartre, me being an armchair philosopher and all. What is essence exactly? Is that what we call purpose? I know existence what is around us, be it objective or subjective.

 

Also, what is a good Sartre site that I can view to bone up on existentialism.

This actually is on topic to talk about Sartre as it follows the question of purpose and meaning without religion. Existentialism realizes the subjective nature of knowledge, and the irrationality of being human. It was really the departure point of modern philosophy away from the more traditional metaphysical approach of philosophy where science and philosophy were a blended discipline. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist as a Christian, in response to the heights where Hegel had taken reason and logic in philosophy.

 

Kierkegaard as a Christian existentialist would be the first to speak of what was later known in Neo-Orthodoxy as the Leap of Faith (not applicable term to evangelicals BTW). It essentially means that even though logically there is no reason to believe, one simply does for the benefit of belief. Camus and Sartre being atheist existentialist respond to the solution without the religious aspect of it. Here's a good quote from a link about this if you're interested. I can provide some more later as I find some:

 

The starkness and hopelessness of this problem is portrayed in an essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942), by another great French Existentialist, Albert Camus (1913-1960). In Greek mythology, Sisyphus, who had once deceived the gods and cheated death, was condemned for eternity to roll a stone up a hill. Every time he was about to complete his task, the stone would roll free back down to the bottom of the hill. Sisyphus would then have to start over again, even though the same thing would just happen again. Thus, the punishment of Sisyphus is a punishment just because it is an endless exercise in futility. Sisyphus is stuck in an eternally pointless task. Now, if the world and everything in it are also pointless, the lesson is that the task of Sisyphus is identical to every thing that we will ever be doing in life. We are no different from Sisyphus; and if his punishment makes the afterlife a hell for him, we are already living in that hell.

 

Presumably, Sisyphus is unable to escape his condition through suicide. So if we can, why not? Arguably, there is no reason why not. But suicide is not the typical Existentialist answer. What can Sisyphus do to make his life endurable? Well, he can just decide that it is meaningful.

The value and purpose that objectively don't exist in the world can be restored by an act of will.

Again, this is what has struck people as liberating about Existentialism. To live one's life, one must exercise the freedom to create a life.

Just going along with conventional values and forgetting about the absurdity of the world is not authentic. Authenticity is to exercise one's free will and to choose the activities and goals that will be meaningful for one's self.

With this approach, even Sisyphus can be engaged and satisfied with what he is doing.

 

You would be amazed how much these sorts of philosophies are part of our everyday lives and we are unaware of where they come from. I think this is quite pertinent to the OP's topic, as how does someone address the value of human existence in the light of a purely naturalist world view? French Existentialism is one such response, as there are considerably many more. The Evangelical Christian response is also one, but then it's a question of it's value in the face of the knowledge we posses today. Do we bury our heads in the sand and deny the knowledge, or do we confront that knowledge with awareness and try to find and try to find meaning in the face of it?

[scotter]

Thank you all for your responses. So far I have counted 6 members Antlerman, MathG, Han Solo, NeonG, Par4D and the Doctor.

 

I enjoyed your inputs and your own exchanges among the members, with different contexts of tones and emotions. Technicalities are suggested, pricked, presuppositions are made (e.g. being CO2 provider means no purpose) however, we have MathG provided a direct answer to the question. He added that in addition to CO2 provider, human beings are the top predators.

 

To start off, as Han suggested, I would prefer to go to Arena if existence of parameters demands so. In going to Arena, if it is to be a 1 on 1 debate, please elect one from you. And I suggest the elect can repost his materials in the Arena, incorporating others if he deems appropriate.

[Ouroboros]

I'm a disaster, extremely terrible, debating in the Arena, so won't have me there. Send a PM to our beloved moderator Skip N. Church and he'll set you up with the debate, as soon as you have someone to challenge you.

[The-Captain]

Hmm I wouldn't mind participating, though I'm not up for a 1on1. I'd be more comfortable contributing in a more limited fashion, as this would be my first foray into the Arena. I don't know, what do you guys think?

 

I'm also a little pressed for time right now, on the job hunt and all that.

 

And more importantly, Scotter would you be ok going roundtable with multiple members that may not be investing as much time and energy as you will have to?

[MathGeek]

I wouldn't mind going at it on a roundtable. I'm not well-versed in theology or philosophy so I don't know how long I'd last. I'd be willing to try it at least.

[Ouroboros]

And more importantly, Scotter would you be ok going roundtable with multiple members that may not be investing as much time and energy as you will have to?

We do allow that to be done in the Arena too. As long as the participants are accepted/approved (or whatava' we should call it).

[Antlerman]

Ah hell.... it's been a while since I've done an Arena debate. As long as Doc and MathGeek are there, I'll lend my support. I too am on a job search, so between the three of us, if that's acceptable to Scotter, I'll be game. Honestly I prefer other's to take the lead though. I'd prefer to see others exercise their acumen as primaries. Up to Scotter. His call. I may need to bow out due to priorities, but will give it what I've got.

 

Repeating an old joke: "The 14 year old boy said to the 12 year old girl, 'I want what I want when I want it.' To which she responded, 'You'll get what I got when I get it'." Ditto. I'll give what I got, when I've got it!

[scotter]

Let's go roundtable in the Arena, Doc, MathG and Antlerman. I myself am not too familiar with the roundtable format, what's the convention? This debate is a learning process for me about the philosophy of life, not about calculating the chance of winning. Naturally 1 on 1 Scotter has a better chance.

 

-----

 

As a side note: I may objectively point out, even though this is a thread I started, the opening thread has been polite. I have a theory to present and I go, "Guys, examine this theory from the perspectives." I also stated that I am open to concede, it's not a closed-end preconclusion. I read from the more emotional posts reflecting strains of anger and past hurt towards the polite post.....

 

Sitting on this side of the room does allow me to see even more. I certainly believe Ex-C members form a significant representative sample (don't care about statistically effective) of the American churches and denominations, and there is something very wrong with American Protestant Christianity.

[Antlerman]

Though I'm interested in this as a point of discussion and willing to go the Arena, I want to test a couple points here first before we get that all set up.

 

Your proposal as stated below from the OP seems centered more around the question of the existence of God, and resulting presumes conclusions centered around that question . As a point of argument, yes if there was a God that existed and was personally interested in us, that would add a variable to the fact of our existence and shift how we perceive our 'use' in the grand scheme of things. If there is no God, then we are left with trying to figure out exactly what if anything is our usefulness to exist within this system. So in short, yes your "wager" as it's worded would be true. If God existed it changes how we perceive our usefulness.

 

"Christians like to present the classical Pascal’s Wager for apologetics and debates. And hereby I am proposing a Scotter’s Wager:

 

If there is no God, I am a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees.

If there is a God, I am more than a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees, I have a use. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God.

 

I am willing to bet there is a God."

 

So may I ask, what exactly are we debating? What our purpose, usefulness, or role is if we don't believe in God? Are you saying that your wager is to go with the bet that God exists, because doing so adds value, whereas not doing so diminishes value? Honestly, that's what I'm hearing here. Your wager is that to believe in God offers the better yield? The surer bet for meaning in life? If that's the point of debate you wish to explore, I'm happy to do so with you.

 

Let me refer everyone back to this discussion we had before: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...=12565&st=0

[The-Captain]

Or is it that under the wager there is a guaranteed purpose, not contingent upon the actual existence of said deity (In the spirit of Pascal's Wager).

 

Edit: Ah, on a closer read Antlerman already said as much.

[Ouroboros]

And don't forget for your debate, if the wager covers the possibility of Deism to be true. Where a Divine Entity creates the world, but doesn't give humans any purpose at all. It's compatible with Evolution and the first bet, in the sense of purpose, and incompatible with the second because it requires God to have a purpose for humans.

[MathGeek]

If anything from my quick reading of today's posts, this debate basically leaves any form of spirituality open, be it from eastern mysticism to Wicca. Also, if God's existence is to be pondered here, would we have to qualify a "default" position? Since Han mentioned Deism as a possibility of being allowed, I would argue that a spectrum of belief exists, which likely allows for the wager to be proffered anyway.

 

I have been keeping an eye on the Arena and so far I've seen little movement.

[Ouroboros]

When Scotter feels ready, and have a proposition (with any adjustments) for the debate, he can submit it to this moderator: Skip N Church.

[scotter]

Antlerman, Han Solo, MathG, Doc: have read the additional posts after my morning post. This is a quick post to acknowledge them - the pre-debate definitions and parameters. Will get back to you within 24 hours. And if the parties involved agree to the definitions (I shall repost the definitions in the Arena when the formal thread is set up), I shall forward to Arena proposal to Skip.

 

Regarding the round table format: it looks like we are defining the format. So I surmise it is a repetition but more formal sans no personal posts of the Colosseum thread. I shall propose the Wager. My opponents each responds with his version. And I have 3 posts to reply to, or we can look at it that way: it is a concurrent 3 1on1 debate threads grouped as 1 thread. I faithfully request then no replies across my opponent friends or it could be confusing.

 

Regards.

[scotter]

Han Solo:

And don't forget for your debate, if the wager covers the possibility of Deism to be true. Where a Divine Entity creates the world, but doesn't give humans any purpose at all. It's compatible with Evolution and the first bet, in the sense of purpose, and incompatible with the second because it requires God to have a purpose for humans.

 

MathG:

If anything from my quick reading of today's posts, this debate basically leaves any form of spirituality open, be it from eastern mysticism to Wicca. Also, if God's existence is to be pondered here, would we have to qualify a "default" position? Since Han mentioned Deism as a possibility of being allowed, I would argue that a spectrum of belief exists, which likely allows for the wager to be proffered anyway.

 

Reply to Han Solo and MathG together, it also replies partly to Antlerman:

 

Definition of God:

God the Creator. I am just saying God the Creator, I am not defining God as the Christian God. You can use the image of Christian God for your debate if that is more familiar to you. If I am a Hindu (Re: Christian notion of Hell Fire is not part of the Wager), a Pagan, I am still basically using the same wager for discussion.

 

Extracted Construct from the wager: If there is a God, there is a higher purpose for man than there is no God.

Han Solo presented a point: how would you not know the God is a mad scientist?

Scotter can also add, how would I not know God cares and loves? Maybe he doesn’t care at all.

 

That doesn’t discount the nature and weight of the wager by a slight substitution:

 

Scotter’s Wager 1.1

if there is a God, I am willing to bet/believe there is a God who loves me. I am made in His image. I have a higher purpose.

vs. (Deism)

If there is a God, I am willing to bet (or I feel comfortable) that he doesn’t love and doesn’t care, and my created role by this God is to provide CO2 and consume as the top predator. I acknowledge that. I live with that fine and move on.

 

I presume we can go back to the original wager for the academic debate, I hope Han Solo and MathG get the theme. Scotter is personally fine with Deists in how they see God.

 

Antlerman:

Your proposal as stated below from the OP seems centered more around the question of the existence of God, and resulting presumes conclusions centered around that question.

 

Yes and No - Actual existence of God may not matter.

 

As a point of argument, yes if there was a God that existed and was personally interested in us, that would add a variable to the fact of our existence and shift how we perceive our 'use' in the grand scheme of things. If there is no God, then we are left with trying to figure out exactly what if anything is our usefulness to exist within this system. So in short, yes your "wager" as it's worded would be true. If God existed it changes how we perceive our usefulness.

 

Even if God doesn’t exist after all (we don’t know), there is a choice in how we perceive ourselves in self-actualization. A part of Scotter’s Wager is existential that you have seen. As the debate moves on and Scotter elaborates, we may get a chance to look at the eschatological part.

 

Scotter’s Wager can be further mediated in the notion of Liberation Theology in relation to Eschatology. We may get to there.

 

So may I ask, what exactly are we debating?

 

Opening statement of Purpose: The purpose of this debate is for my opponents is to invalidate the Scotter’s Wager model using your tools, for me is to examine your tools to conclude if the model can be invalidated.

 

What's our purpose, usefulness, or role is if we don't believe in God?

 

No not exactly. “If there is no God†is different from ‘if you don’t believe in God.â€

“What is the use of human beings in humanistic terms?†And I appeal to you again, please contemplate and handle this question as a question, not a counter-question.

 

E.g. A female friend’s visa expired and she had to leave the country. I was trying to console her, “Why do you want to stay here?†picturing she may say, “I made good friends here.†Or other reasons. Then “Well, with your personality you can make good friends anywhere.†She interpreted the question as a counter-question that I am suggesting she should not stay in this country.

I hope you get what I mean from the example.

 

Are you saying that your wager is to go with the bet that God exists, because doing so adds value, whereas not doing so diminishes value? Honestly, that's what I'm hearing here.

Your wager is that to believe in God offers the better yield? The surer bet for meaning in life?

 

Clarification, refer to the Opening Statement of Purpose again. I am not using the Wager to convince you there is a God, or that you should believe in God; I am asking you to convince me the model can be invalidated by your tools, and I shall examine your tools pertaining to your claims. Should the debate ends with ‘So far I am not convinced…’, you friends can always choose to stay in your theological position and I feel fine. You can assume Scotter as a Christian but need not assume Scotter is a hell-fire evangelical Christian.

 

Doing so enjoys a higher reference, is a higher manifestation (as my opponent, your debate task is to invalidate it); not doing so does not diminish value. Value and yield are not to be understood as physical terms if we may agree.

 

Doc:

 

Or is it that under the wager there is a guaranteed purpose, not contingent upon the actual existence of said deity (In the spirit of Pascal's Wager).

 

Not ‘guaranteed’, depends on human personal mediation input, but not contingent upon the actual existence of the Deity.

 

(Scotter will be offline until this evening 10:00pm EST)

[scotter]

Proposed Debate: On the validity of Scotter’s Wager

 

Opening statement of Purpose:

The purpose of this debate: for my opponents is to invalidate the Scotter’s Wager model using your tools, for me is to examine your tools to conclude if the model can be invalidated.

 

Definitions of terms pending members’ agreement:

 

Wager:

Before I begin, I wish to clarify that the Wager is not exactly a wager like Pascal’s in terms of “wrong bets and their consequencesâ€. I thank Han Solo for his earlier suggestion in the Colosseum area. I shall continue to use the terms Wager and “bet†for this debate area, you may substitute it with choices, weights.

 

Scotter’s Wager:

If there is no God, I am a carbon dioxide provider for the trees, a (top) predator in the ecosystem.

If there is a God, I am more than the above. I have a higher purpose. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God.

 

Using ‘I’ par solo person sense is for the simplicity of expression. Scotter’s position is that the Wager can be applied and extended to the whole humanity. I thank MathG for adding the notion of “predatorâ€.

 

Additional Remark: If there is a God, it is not to say I am not a CO2 provider, I am still a CO2 provider, because I reckon this biological role is one of human’s roles. If there is a God, I have even higher and more purposes.

 

Therefore, I am willing to “betâ€, to believe there is a God. To reconstruct it less formally, I would rather choose to believe there is a God.

 

There are also expanded elaborations on the Wager that shall show in the course.

 

God:

God the Creator. I am just saying God the Creator, I am not defining God as the Christian God. I am just saying you can use the image of Christian God for your debate if that is more familiar to you. If I am a Hindu (Re: Christian notion of Hell Fire is not part of the Wager), a Pagan, I am still basically using the same wager for discussion.

 

Heaven:

We may need to use it. I put it there in case.

The ultimate destination of a person who is to return to God. A metaphysical place or a spiritual status be in union with God. From Platonic context to Abrahamic angelic hierarchies, this is flexible. Please don’t argue in technicalities like Islamic Heaven with 72 virgins.

 

Hell:

Hell and the existence of Hell is not part of this wager. The wager does not deal with eternal hell fire, the existence of Hell. This Wager does not state Hell exists or Hell does not exist, it’s just not part of it.

 

A Neutral Observer:

The Neutral Observer personality will show up in the course. A Neutral Observer, a neutral person, is defined as one who is open to both theism (including monotheism, deism) and atheism. Not one observes from the standpoint of atheism mediating theism.

 

“Use†of Human beings:

Although alternatively you can argue “why do things have to have a use?â€, however should you wish to encounter “the use†of human beings in your arguments, I cannot accept the “use†of human beings is to serve other human beings - in this debate.

 

Outside of this debate, I greatly admire Mahatmas Gandhi for his service to humanity, and if Gandhi had stated, “My life’s purpose is to serve my motherland India, my Indian brothers and sistersâ€, I have no problem with that.

 

You don’t need to make a post stating you agree to the Definitions. Please raise your questions by making a post before the debate begins though.

 

English words ‘Use’ ‘Function’ ‘Purpose’ ‘Role’:

Words cognition: ‘Use’ and ‘Function’ are more inherent, ‘Purpose’ can be assigned from an intention, ‘Role’ is the ‘use’ ‘function’ per an individual amongst the other individuals in a collective picture.

For this point, I am just clarifying my application, if you think they mean the same, it shall be your application. This is not a linguistic debate and we should not spend too much time drilling on the vocabularies.

 

Debate Parameters:

No word count, 2 weeks reply period to the opponent, PM or make a post if time beyond two weeks needed. That means for Scotter to reply to all 3 opponents, it may take 6 weeks, is it okay?

 

Alternative Roundtable format:

1. e.g. Antlerman presents his responses/questions

2. Scotter presents his responses/answers A

3. MathG takes over from Antlerman, picks up Scotter’s Answer A, and present his own responses and questions on Answer A, and MathG's own materials

4. Scotter presents Answer B to MathG

5. Doc takes over from MathG with his materials and picks up answer B, and Doc's own responses/questions/materials

6. Scotter presents C

7. Back to Antlerman again

8. This may take shorter time, more interactive, and MathG and Doc don’t have to wait too long.

 

Once a designated opponent stops responding to Scotter’s post beyond 2 weeks without prior notice, the debater is deemed to have exited.

 

Either party may end the debate by posting “I wish to bow out/concede/stop here.†Bow Out and Stop does not suggest concede – some of you have personal priorities.

 

Since this is a round table debate, Scotter’s exit will end this debate. Scotter’ individual opponents may exit by making a statement, until the last opponent individual exits that ends the debate. i.e. It is ongoing until the debate ends.

 

A Personal Statement:

Personal sentiment statements are discouraged. And, the purpose of this debate is never about evangelizing back to the atheist/Ex-C members. And the debate moves on, readers will come to recognize.

 

Scotter shall be online again by 10:00 pm EST. Please give feedback on: Definitions of terminologies, the formats of Round Table debate you prefer.

[par4dcourse]

Therefore, I am willing to “betâ€, to believe there is a God. To reconstruct it less formally, I would rather choose to believe there is a God.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but that statement negates any "wager" you can contrive. You choose to believe x. I choose to believe -x . End of debate.

Choose to believe in elves and pink unicorns if you want. Just another wordy xtian here to save our immortal souls. Sigh.

[florduh]

What par4 said.

 

I choose to believe in leprechauns, for without them, St. Patty's Day is not nearly as much fun. Let's have a formal debate.

[Ouroboros]

Very true Par,

 

If the purpose is to debate a bet in the same spirit as Pascal's, where the "safest choice" would be somewhat reasonable and logical, it doesn't sound like the Wager 1.1 is like that at all, but it's rather based on an emotional premise. "I am willing to bet that my dogs love me." kind of thing. We can all do that, all daylong, bet on the things we believe in and have opinions about, but it doesn't do much for a philosophical argument for a certain position.

 

But what I think Scotter is saying is to use his original wager for the debate. (Which will bring up the conflict I mentioned - hopefully. A condition of the wager where the bets are overlapping.)

[Antlerman]

Proposed Debate: On the validity of Scotter’s Wager

 

Opening statement of Purpose:

The purpose of this debate: for my opponents is to invalidate the Scotter’s Wager model using your tools, for me is to examine your tools to conclude if the model can be invalidated.

In order for me to agree to this debate, it will need to take the form of you making your assertion and offering argument to as to why that assertion should be considered a valid one. I do not see the set up of making an unsupported assertion, and placing the burden on the opponent to dispute it as fair debate. I will be willing to challenge your arguments for your position, but I'm unwilling for this to be just one assertion being posited against another. If you are unwilling to argue for your position, then the assertion removes itself from examination and consequently fails to be a debate.

 

“Use” of Human beings:

Although alternatively you can argue “why do things have to have a use?”, however should you wish to encounter “the use” of human beings in your arguments, I cannot accept the “use” of human beings is to serve other human beings - in this debate.

Not that I intend to argue that, but on what basis do you exclude that as a possible answer? Why should a response that the function of a species is to serve itself for the sake of its own survival, be considered invalid?

 

Debate Parameters:

No word count, 2 weeks reply period to the opponent, PM or make a post if time beyond two weeks needed. That means for Scotter to reply to all 3 opponents, it may take 6 weeks, is it okay?

I would suggest we try to respond within one week to avoid the sort of six week delay you mentioned. If for some reason we can't make that time frame, then we post short acknowledgment of request for more time. This way it tries to keep the movement going, but it's not intended to exclude exceptions.

 

Alternative Roundtable format:

1. e.g. Antlerman presents his responses/questions

2. Scotter presents his responses/answers A

3. MathG takes over from Antlerman, picks up Scotter’s Answer A, and present his own responses and questions on Answer A, and MathG's own materials

4. Scotter presents Answer B to MathG

5. Doc takes over from MathG with his materials and picks up answer B, and Doc's own responses/questions/materials

6. Scotter presents C

7. Back to Antlerman again

8. This may take shorter time, more interactive, and MathG and Doc don’t have to wait too long.

The way we handled a round table discussion before was a little more relaxed and flowing for converstation but with rules to keep the others part of the discussion. I would suggest we do that here as I explained in this other Arena discussion:

Buddy Ferris, Alice, and I will be having a three-way round table discussion in the interest of exploring what many of us feel to be core reasons why Christianity fails as a religious option for us, and hope to address the faith’s viability as a positive faith option for humanity in general.

 

As ground rules for this discussion, only the three of us will participate in this thread, others are free to comment and discuss in the Peanut Gallery Kevin has set aside for others. Within this discussion we will also need to accommodate schedules of the participants, and my suggestion is that any two participants should wait for input from the 3rd member after more than three or four posts each have passed without their participation. Finally, we need to keep the discussion on topic with side tracks at a minimum, and generally only if they have a point that leads back to the discussion topic.

 

A Personal Statement:

Personal sentiment statements are discouraged. And, the purpose of this debate is never about evangelizing back to the atheist/Ex-C members. And the debate moves on, readers will come to recognize.

I agree with this with one clarification. I see it perfectly within the spirit of debate to try to persuade others of your position. This is different than proselytizing, using emotional appeals. Doing so would be considered a logic fallacy in debate and is discouraged. Expressing passion about one's position I would see differently than using that passion in place of an actual argument.

 

Scotter shall be online again by 10:00 pm EST. Please give feedback on: Definitions of terminologies, the formats of Round Table debate you prefer.

One request. We refrain from referring to ourselves in the 3rd person. I prefer this to be a round table discussion amongst individuals, in a serious yet relaxed way.

[HuaiDan]

Define "purpose for human life".

If, by co2 generator for the trees, you mean that our pale blue dot could be obliterated and the universe would continue to churn away without remorse or recognition, then you are correct. If the human race went extinct, no one would mourn our passing save for cats and dogs and other parasites.

 

 

 

From a more introspective angle, I suppose, my life has more meaning without god than it did with.