This is an open debate challenge to the RRS. The challenge is issued specifically to any of the following members of RRS:

Brian

Kelly

Greydon

Rook

On either of the following resolutions:

Resolved: Theism is more likely to be true than atheism.

Resolved: It is rational to believe that theism is true.

You pick.

Suggestions for format:

Option (1): Written debate, in the formal debate forum of either theologyweb.com or infidels.org. These sites have reasonable guidelines to ensure that both parties in the debate are treated fairly and given an equal amount of space to present their case.

Found this while browsing MSNBC....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21837499/

Gives me hope that some people are starting to open their eyes.

I am interested in where, in constructing their worldview, particular theists find the inclusion of whatever it is they mean when they use the term 'god' to be required.

For instance, if one starts with Descartes' 'I', defended through retortion, they could then reasonably go on to state that in order for one (the 'I' ) to exist it must exist somewhere. They could then go on to state that being as that they must exist somewhere, and the environment they experience is the only reference they have for what it means to exist somewhere, they conclude that the environment they experience is the actual environment in which they exist. From there they can build from sensory data to the existence of different aspects of the world around them, their nature as a physical biological organism, and so on and so forth, building outward and constructing their picture of reality.

"Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level -- but that's only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it? -- I must have justice, or I will destroy myself.

If, for the sake of argument, we grant the validity of the argument that the universe must have a first cause, it prompts a very important question. How do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? Perhaps the first cause, in creating the universe, extinguished itself.

[Edit: I must rephrase this question slightly, as it has been correctly pointed out that IF the multiverse is the cause of the universe, THEN the multiverse must still exist. Please read the question as: Assuming the first cause to be some form of sentient being, how do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? If you intend to propose the multiverse as a sentient being, please justify this.]

What are peoples thoughts on Taoism?

This is the second in my series of essays.
Again, this should be uncontroversial and I don't expect to get a huge amount of opposition here.
This one even involves an implicit refutation of some of the claims of pre-suppositionalist theology,
The idea is that the first two essays will remind us of some subtle points that will be picked up later on in the more controversial arguments.

The Roots of Logic
The last essay took at the root and purpose of reason.
This one concentrates on a particular method within reason - logic.

The RRS claim that theism is irrational is a controversial one, even amongst atheists.
It happens that I'm one of the atheists that disagree with them on this point.
Here I present 7 essays that gradually build up to a web of arguments against it.
They start off completely uncontroversial, and I don't expect a large amount of disagreement in the first few, but gradually build into a position that might not be so widely held.

Whether you agree with them or not, I think that these arguments will be of interest.
Sometimes we can just hear an argument, intuitively 'smell' the sophistry, but not be able to clearly see where it lies. Our intuition can mislead us, but often it can be right on the money. Even so, it's not helpful in a debate. For a disagreement to be constructive you need to try and articulate why you disagree. There's many out there who criticise the RRS, find them 'militant' and 'fundamentalist' but are yet to give a clear argument against their position.

I want to talk about two events that have happened this same day. The first event, please. I received one of those usual emails from this or that Christian organization. This time the organization was talking about how Lowes (the store) was calling Christmas Trees, "Family Trees" in order to be so-called politically correct. Some people might think this is a big deal. That it is important to fight against the politically correct that seems to go out of its way to decimate and deter Christians or any form of Christian openness. Now so many people might think that we should go on the defensive, do our best to fight the good fight, but often times we find ourselves in the middle of silly wars that should not have been started in the first place. I think that now, because I have had to witness to a second event that has happened today. Yet it was the second situation that put this first situation into perspective. This second situation shows that the first situation, the anger and the resentment for a company who calls their Christmas Trees "Family Trees," was just plain silly. This second situation was quiet. Silent. Except for tears of a mom and father. This second situation was witnessing a child dying.

I recently did an experiment and proved that the speed of light is not instantaneous! To all Fundamentalist Christians: there is no conspiracy that the speed of light is instantaneous, you can now stop believing absolutely in the bible without any regrets! It really WOULD take billions of years for light from other stars to arrive here! The Universe really IS more than 6,000 years old by all observable evidence! Yay!

Spread the word ppl.  Spread the Word of the Universe.