Topic Proposal Issues

Maybe we want to have different rules for different fora ?Perhaps Admin could create a "chat" forum for each of the major areas of discussion which requires only that a topic makes sense (more or less) and that the initial post follows the guidelines.The main fora could then be more restricted and have a higher quality threshold.

Free For All is a bit too unfocussed and doesn't have even the basic checks I suggested.

My suggested rephrasing of Premise 11 Transcendant objective values of good and evil only exist if God exists.(That seems the easiest phrasing in plain English. Using the notation of formal logic I'd go for the equivalent of "The nonexistence of God implies the nonexistence of transcendant objective values of good and evil").{At the moment, what this refers to is obvious. For future reference, it is about this "Proposed New Topic". When refering to things in other topics, supplying links is a good thing. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed previous edit a bit. Use "preview" dummy.

You're wrong about the rephrasing - "only...if" implies a necessary but not sufficient condition. However your phrasing might make Iano's argument a little clearer. However I don't think that that is much of an issue because the argument is formally valid, but the truth of the premises is very much in question (the 2nd in the sense that we need to identify the observed "evil" as objective evil - which is rather hard to do withotu adding more premises).

If Robin wants to discuss the differences between formal logic and informal reasoning then I'm game.However I have serious doubts about the OP if that is to be the subject. Essentially it says "I have a criticism of Jazzns's debating style - he criticises my debating style and that's wrong". If the OP is just an excuse for having a go at Jazz - and relies on a double standard to do so - then I don't think that it should be promoted as is.

Ignore him. We all know he isn't going to say anything worth reading. Maybe if everyone ignores him he'll go off to pester some other forum.

Since the original PNT is less than promising, perhaps it would be better if one of the people who wants to discuss the matter wrote a more substantial PNT ?

I'm not an expert in Quantum theory, but...The text about the plunger seems to be an aside, and the text will probably make more sense if it is ignored. Elsewhere in the text it is stated that the bomb either absorbs or transmits a photon.The text of the article may or may not be entirely accurate but it looks as if something genuine is behind it.However, that is not a good reason to accept the topic proposal because the proposed "experiment" has almost nothing to do with the "bomb tester". Unless, perhaps Syamasu intends to "set up the circuit in his brain" by having the mirrors and other apparatus needed surgically implanted in his skull.

I rather doubt that they are the same person. Josh Greenberger seems to be American with no interest in geology - and cpthiltz claims to be a geology student in Scotland, with an interest in cricket.

The issue has been discussed here before, Message 1. Although the thesis under discussion appears slightly different, it must be noted that no significant evidence was produced for it.

It seems to be a bit of an abuse of power for a moderator to evade the normal pre-promotion review by promoting their own topic immediately, instead of waiting for someone else do it. In order to maintain the appearance of fairness (and to avoid serious abuses in the future) I'd recommend a formal policy forbidding the practice.

It seems pointless to propose a new debate, when the question is the performance in previous debates - which are still freely accessible. The facts are already proven and a new debate on the same subject cannot change them.

I’m a bit concerned about Tangle’s PNT Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection StoryIt reproduces an entire article with no indication that permission has been sought let alone granted.A link with selected quotes would be appropriate- but certainly not the entire article unless permission has been granted,