General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
miniboes wrote:I think Pascal's Wager is quite interesting, although quite easily defeated.
Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with creationism (the creation vs. evolution debate), just theism.
miniboes wrote:I personally feel like Matt is right up there with the four horsemen in terms of debating qualities, his understanding of reason and philosophy is quite amazing.
Absolutely. I would even argue he's more rational than Hitchens was, some views of his weren't fully rational (like his positions on abortion and women for example). Hitchens' strength was especially the way he articulated himself.
Volenta wrote:Absolutely. I would even argue he's more rational than Hitchens was, some views of his weren't fully rational (like his positions on abortion and women for example). Hitchens' strength was especially the way he articulated himself.
Yes, I also felt like often Hitchens did not actually address the opponents arguments for the existence of god, rather continues on how awful the god would be if he'd exist. Although he was right, it was not a very good strategy for a debate.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
RedAppleGP wrote:2. "Yea? Well the 2nd law of thermodynamics DISPROVES EVOLUTION BRUH!"
It doesn't! Basically, the second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease" and Creationists thinking that evolution cannot be possible with such a law. They misinterpreted it, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics only occurs in a closed space, whereas planet earth is NOT!
