(July 20, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...you've got a picture of a shroud, that you're convinced is the shroud... for no readily apparent reason. Or did you think human silhouettes on cloth are unique to the shroud of turin?

The iconic pictures of the shroud depict unique damage found the one at Turin.

So the pictures of the shroud that we all know are pictures of the shroud. And..?

(July 20, 2015 at 9:12 pm)IATIA Wrote:  The shroud of turin is not extremely distorted, therefore is was never wrapped around a body to achieve the end result.

Actually, that is not true The image is distorted and only recently was a team of forensic researchers able to use computer modeling to reconstruct it.

Got a citation for that so we can look it up?

(July 21, 2015 at 9:52 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 20, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...you've got a picture of a shroud, that you're convinced is the shroud... for no readily apparent reason. Or did you think human silhouettes on cloth are unique to the shroud of turin?

The iconic pictures of the shroud depict unique damage found the one at Turin.

Which you know is unique because...?

What's the shroud supposed to show anyway? That there was a dead guy on it? A dead human guy?

(July 21, 2015 at 7:19 am)Metis Wrote: Before I ask one of the admins about the debate area, will it just be you or perhaps Randy, Catholic_Lady or one of your other fellow believers would like to join in as well?

I think it best not to confuse things too much by bringing in additional parties beyond what is necessary. Keeping a philosophical argument as simple and elegant as possible is difficult enough as it is.

I haven't yet engaged in a formal debate on this forum so I also will need to learn for format and rules. We need to have a moderator, Nestor would be ideal (IMO) but I think only admins can serve in that capacity.

The proposal needs to reflect the scope of Aquinas's argument, i.e. the god to which the proof applies being the 'God of the Philosophers'. I certainly do not want to argue for the any other attributes than those specifically related to each of the proofs, which in the case of the 1st way is a transcendent ground of being. That said the 5 ways work together and if we agree to do all 5 at once, we need to allow more time between responses.

Special pleading and non sequiturs.

Have fun Metis, you're braver than me

PS: anyone can bring that aquinas business into my apologist challenge thread if they want me to dismember it. But I won't steal your thunder if you're gonna debate it!

(July 21, 2015 at 10:33 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 7:19 am)Metis Wrote: Before I ask one of the admins about the debate area, will it just be you or perhaps Randy, Catholic_Lady or one of your other fellow believers would like to join in as well?

I think it best not to confuse things too much by bringing in additional parties beyond what is necessary. Keeping a philosophical argument as simple and elegant as possible is difficult enough as it is.

I haven't yet engaged in a formal debate on this forum so I also will need to learn for format and rules. We need to have a moderator, Nestor would be ideal (IMO) but I think only admins can serve in that capacity.

The proposal needs to reflect the scope of Aquinas's argument, i.e. the god to which the proof applies being the 'God of the Philosophers'. I certainly do not want to argue for the any other attributes than those specifically related to each of the proofs, which in the case of the 1st way is a transcendent ground of being. That said the 5 ways work together and if we agree to do all 5 at once, we need to allow more time between responses.

FWIW I believe the participants set the ground rules within the general context of the normal Forum rules. So long as they agree on the rules as made explicit before hand then there shouldn't be an issue.

(July 21, 2015 at 10:33 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 7:19 am)Metis Wrote: Before I ask one of the admins about the debate area, will it just be you or perhaps Randy, Catholic_Lady or one of your other fellow believers would like to join in as well?

I think it best not to confuse things too much by bringing in additional parties beyond what is necessary. Keeping a philosophical argument as simple and elegant as possible is difficult enough as it is.

I haven't yet engaged in a formal debate on this forum so I also will need to learn for format and rules. We need to have a moderator, Nestor would be ideal (IMO) but I think only admins can serve in that capacity.

The proposal needs to reflect the scope of Aquinas's argument, i.e. the god to which the proof applies being the 'God of the Philosophers'. I certainly do not want to argue for the any other attributes than those specifically related to each of the proofs, which in the case of the 1st way is a transcendent ground of being. That said the 5 ways work together and if we agree to do all 5 at once, we need to allow more time between responses.

Chad - it takes an admin to set up a debate, but my reading of the debate area rules seems to imply that any mutually agreed upon third party can act as moderator.