Rosa finally accepted my challenge after much distraction and dilly dallying:
- God, can He be proven to exist?
- Can He be proven not to exist?
- Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
- No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
- Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
- If an argument is not clear or too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by….**
- The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest argument.
- No one other than RosaRubicondior and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment.
Format:
Opening Speech – Opponent
Opening Speech – Sacerdotus
First Rebuttal – Opponent
First Rebuttal – Sacerdotus
Second Rebuttal – Opponent
Second Rebuttal – Sacerdotus
Closing Statement – Opponent
Closing Statement – Sacerdotus
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPDATE: August 21, 2012 9:00 PM Easter time,
Rosa Rubicondior has forfeited and is declared the loser of the debate. She has, by her own will, bowed out of the debate. She has even blocked my Twitter. I wish Rosa well and am disappointed that she did not trust her Atheistic reasoning enough to debate me. Hopefully she will study more and prepare for a future debate if she wishes to try again. I am open to debate her or any Atheist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPDATE May 16, 2013
The verdict is in and @rosarubicondior is declared the loser of the debate for good. Every attempt has been made to continue the debate and instead Rubicondior resorts to ad hominem and falsely applying another’s identity on me in order to distract. It is obvious that Rubicondior is an internet troll seeking only attention and is not serious about atheism. Rubicondior is the reason why many abandon atheism and join religion, hence why atheism has a short retention.
Any religious individual reading this blog post should block and report rubicondior as spam. He is nothing but a waste of time and has serious psychiatric issues. I hope he gets the help needed. Let us pray for this troubled soul.
Rationally Faithful 
Well, I gave Rosa the opportunity to start first, but after 4 days of stalling, lying and cyber bullying, I will start:
In this debate, I hope to provide reasons supported by evidence for the existence of God. This evidence is widely accepted in academia and is taught in every university across the globe. As the debate moves forward, I will apply this evidence to each argument where appropriate.
Rosa made a comment on twitter while stalling for time. In the comment she mentions natural explanations. I am not disputing that nature has its explanations. This debate is not about natural explanations. This debate is about the existence of God. Regardless of natural phenomenon having explanations, this does not negate that they have a primal cause. This primal cause I argue to be God.
Let's see if Rosa can offer a counter argument for this. If an intelligent, all knowing, all power being is not the primal cause of the natural phenomena which we find explanations for using science, then what is? It is illogical to assume a non-conscious agent which uses mathematical probabilities to form designs out of nothing is possible.
LikeLike
It will be impossible for you to support the proposition that:
There is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist.
Therefore you will not be able to sustain your boast that you can prove scientifically that the Christian god exists.
You may conceded defeat once again by posting it here and by referencing it on Twitter.
Failure to establish this proposition within three days will be taken as defeat, as will any attempt to prevaricate, divert the thread or indulge in ad hominem abuse.
LikeLike
This is not an opening statement. Please post one or risk losing the debate.
LikeLike
Let me know if ever you feel up to giving a grown-up reply to my challenge.
I'll still give you the three days before calling it.
BTW, I've screen captured this comment in case it gets accidentally deleted.
LikeLike
What challenge? The challenge is here. You agreed to debate me on my blog. You cannot make up rules, and invite third parties, that is ridiculous. I initiated this and posted the rules. If you do not comply, then you obviously forfeited.
I and others have screen captured and video taped your stalling tactics. I have nothing to lose. I am on the side of Truth. 23 hours, please post your opening statement or be declared the loser.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It's never pretty to watch someone being reduced to simple denialism, especially so quickly, but I'm happy to accept that as your best reply.
I guess that brings this to an end. You are clearly never going to come close to establishing your proposition.
Perhaps it would do you good to try to work out why.
LikeLike
BTW, I'm sorry to have reduced you to such a sad and sorry spectacle and reduced you to lying. As you know, I never agreed to debate you on this blog. I made the terms and conditions very plain here.
If I was a member of your 'faith' I would be cringing with embarrassment at your dishonesty and wanton disregard for civilised behaviour done in the name of it. If you have an ounce of personal integrity you would be ashamed of yourself.
I doubt you will have the integrity to release this comment.
LikeLike
Ad hominem is against the rules. You have lost a point. Please provide your opening statement or be declared the loser in 23 hours. Thanks.
LikeLike
Projecting again? Spare us the ad hominem. Where is the opening statement? I invited you to the debate, I make the terms and conditions and you accepted.
For your own good reputation, show some integrity and follow through with what you agreed to. We are all WATCHING you fall to pieces. 🙂
The next comment that contains ad hominem and no opening statement will result in you being declared the loser.
LikeLike