Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

I can’t quite believe the level of ridiculousness and rudeness going on here, so I’m going to recap the posts.

I return your challenge with another: a formal debate of the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas. We may wish to change the terms of the debate some, giving more generous response times, perhaps, etc.

Please read my initial post and objections in my recent formal debate with Metis. Chad Wooters vs. Metis You may pick up where Metis failed horribly to refute any of the Five Ways by Aquinas. These should give you the advantage of knowing my arguments in advance whereas I must wait for you to present your objections. As for me, I will update my initial post for the sake of clarity and to include the 4th Way which I gave short shrift.

I await your response.

Well, it's chock full of logical fallacies (the 5 ways), and I can point them all out if you want. I'm not sure it's much of a debate. What else is there to say?

And it uses the same label for the "answer" to all 5 arguments without justification. It doesn't show these are all the same thing, even if the arguments were valid.

Oh yeah. The 5 ways is yet another attempt to waltz past the earliest point science can model with everyday naive notions about cause and effect which don't even stand up particularly well in quantum mechanics right now. I can forgive it since it was written a long time ago.

It's no different to the Kalam, it just tries to set up apparent paradoxes and then special pleads something into existence to fix the paradox.

It seems to show a discomfort with an infinite past and an infinite chain of events also, which amounts to an argument from incredulity.

If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it.

I come back, and feel like taking a break. I haven’t read any of the replies since my last post. I make this clear in a nice, friendly way here:

I'm taking a break from heavy going topics for a few days as I get all obsessed with them sometimes. I'll be back to read the replies here in a while and reply to people

After a quick peek, I come back to these replies:

Has anything actually been refuted in this thread? I think MK's ontological claim has not been directly addressed as a metaphysical problem. The OP boasts to reveal the LOGIC of the theistic proofs, but the skeptics have instead chosen to respond with EMPIRICAL observations of the natural world. In other words, they have failed to show that the MK's arguments are in themselves illogical. As for now, my counter-challenge to either formally debate the 5W has been tacitly declined and my offer to defend any of the 5W selected by the skeptics has gone unanswered. Will any skeptics step up to the plate?

Bold mine. I didn’t decline it. I said I’d consider it, total misrepresentation. I tried my very best with MK but if I can’t understand what he’s even saying, how can I be expected to refute anything?
Then this:

What a total cop-out! This thread is a complete bust. I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme. I've had enough of this thread. If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me.

Wow. This is a level of rudeness which surprised me, even given what I’m used to reading. Apparently I’m not allowed a few days break, and I’m making empty boasts.
I’m sure Chad will claim this as a victory, but I have simply no interest in debating people who show absolutely no respect. I already pointed out, as shown above, plenty of problems with the 5 ways which haven’t been addressed. So to make out I’ve ignored it is a lie too.

I’m not interested in anything more Chad has to say about anything. I just wanted to make these events clear to everyone else. Maybe you should read what people write Chad before calling them a cockleper.