Pool's closed for the actual debate. Twas a noble idea.

I really don't know how well this particular topic is going to work. I don't believe that there is any "evidence" persay that someone could submit to "prove" that there isn't a God, or any sort of Creator. I am curious as to how someone would argue that. [I originally went into how I think it would be tough for a person to make a convincing argument of the converse opinion, but I couldn't really get into it without making my position clear, so I deleted it.]

I am willing to argue the side that there is a God. I don't really fit your conditions, as I am a Christian. The extent of my knowledge and belief I would rate both as high.

So count me as someone who is willing to participate if you'd like.

You fit the conditions just fine.

And the person taking up the negative does not necessarily need to show that God does not exist; rather, the opponent could argue against what you said, or argue for agnosticism, Buddhism, or whatever, while showing that such a God does not fit.

I think you've set up a biased debate. You are not expecting both sides to have to to offer the same burden of proof.

Possibly, the question should be; Does God exist, yes or no? Did God create our reality?

Yes, the way the question is phrased is not conductive as to the purpose of the debate, I think.

All right. I'll rephrase the question, no problem. Is tyler's solution a better one?

If this is going to be a true formal debate, don't you come up with a statement, then argue pro or con? It should not be an open question.

This is true. But the problem is that my old statement seemed a little bit loaded. Does the statement I have now work?

If "the extent of the knowledge and strength of [someone's] belief" is based upon faith, how in the world can you debate this?

What about theists who recognize that the existence of God is unprovable? Or agnostics who believe the existence of God is not undisprovable (is this a word...lol)?

Thanks for the question - what I meant with this statement was an attempt to avoid, for example, a "casual Christian" who believes because their parents believed, etc., and hasn't read pretty much any of the Bible, etc. Or, alternately, I'd want to avoid an agnostic or atheist signing up and not knowing anything about his own position, only completely spending his time trashing the deist's position.

If the deist side enjoys his strong faith, he can feel free to explain why and how he feels his faith works in reality. This is completely reasonable and acceptable.

To widen the range of deist arguments, I have removed the stipulation that the deist must argue for a "creator God." The deist may present his position in any way he likes, and the non-deist may do so, as well.

The theist is defined as a person who recognizes by any means that God exists. The theist you described would most certainly be called upon to demonstrate some sort of reasoning, i.e. why he or she believes a God exists, and why their reasoning is consistent to their thought that the existence of God is not provable. Many Christians actually fall in this category, i.e. the "leap of faith" type should explain why they took their leap of faith, and why such a leap is, at the least, not in contradiction to reality.

Agnostics who hold that the possibility that God may be provable (which is what I think you were trying to say) raises a good point. Thus, Agnostic should be defined as a person who believes (or can assert) that under their current knowledge, God is not provable. Should your two examples happen to face off, the debate could center around (for instance) why the deist believes his faith justifies God, vs. why an agnostic believes it doesn't.

An "agnostic" type who believes something along the lines of "if you believe God exists, then he does for you, but if you don't, then he doesn't for you" should not elect to participate in the central debate, since he really couldn't supply a sufficient counter-position, unless he wishes to argue why one who does not believe in the existence of God forms a different reality from one who does believe (which could get too wordy and off-topic).

Keep your intentional trolling out of this thread. If you have an issue with this, explain yourself in this thread, PM me, or PM a moderator.

This sounds fun.

Basically, I'm talking about people on both sides who recognize that the issue of whether or not their is a God is not really an issue that can be broken down in terms of known discrete facts. They may have different beliefs as to the existence of God, but would actually have nothing to really disagree on. I guess my issue with this topic is that there really is nothing useful to debate, as belief in God is not something that is predicated on externally observable principles.

In all honesty, this is probably the worst topic for a debate. No one is going to convince anyone with their arguments for or against. It is futile. The debate is deadlocked before it has even begun.

It's like having a debate about what the Yeti's favourite English soccer team is. Pointless.

C'mon, the topic could be intelligently designed. Tsk tsk.

I disagree. Certainly this issue is something that most people have set in their minds. But not everyone. I've know a LOT of people who have flipped on their beliefs. Even if one person comes out of this with a new idea, what's the problem with that? And I'll bet, even if people dont radically chance their stances, they at least have a better understanding of WHY people believe what they believe. And THAT to me, is the most important aspect. That people at least understand the other side, not that they agree.
I dont really think the point is to come to agreement, per say. It's to look across the table and gain some understanding.

I mean, I dont have to believe in God to gain understanding why you or someone else might.

I think dismissing an idea, just because you think people wont agree on it, forces you to miss a very important part of the equation.

debating the debate. we're off a rocky start.