A new kind of debate

Formal debates about the existence of God suck. Always.

One problem is that so many debates are set up with the misplaced notion of balance. One side is making an extraordinary claim, yet the side with the default position (not believing in that extraordinary claim) is expected to make its negative case equally.

The setup is unfair in two ways: 1) By the apportionment of equal time, the theist side is short-changed on the opportunity to meet the burden of proof, which is entirely theirs. If someone is going to prove the theory of relativity or that the moon is made of green cheese, you have to give them some time to do it. And there's no reason the other side should be given any time at all to prove that the moon is not made of green cheese. The other side should merely be critically examining the green-cheese case as it was just made. 2) The atheist side suffers from the implication that it has any obligation at all beyond examining the case made by the theist, who is the only one making any noteworthy claim. The atheist brings to the discussion only the claim that he or she hasn't heard a good case for God yet, and so fails to believe, naturally. There's no "proof" to be given for this position.

I don't know an atheist who isn't open to new evidence or argument that would change his or her mind. And that's what the event is all about -- the theist claims to have a case that no reasonable person should reject. If the theist presents that good case, and the atheist rejects it without stating good objections, or actually accepts it, then the theist is successful. On the other hand, if the theist doesn't present a persuasive case, or can't answer objections to it, the theist fails.

I think it's foolish for an atheist to walk into a "balanced" setup on the existence of God. Balance makes little sense on this issue -- and is actually unfair. The theist should accept the burden of proof, be given the time to make the case, and the rest of the discussion should be focused on that case. Does the argument prove God or doesn't it?

Of course, it works both ways. An event about, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection should be similarly weighted with the burden on the person making the case for that theory. This person should be given enough time to make the case, then the a-evolutionists would focus questions and criticisms on that case.

A person claiming God exists should be willing to run a gauntlet of questions about that claim. So should a person advocating the theory of evolution. In neither case does "equal time" really make sense.

And, of course, the result would be only: Was a god's existence demonstrated in this event? Or, was the theory of evolution's soundness demonstrated in this event?

Below is a "debate" format I've been working on for a while in an attempt to correct the structural deficiencies of the usual "Existence of God" event. (For reasons I may get into later, it assumes the participation of a smart, strong and fair moderator.)

What do you think?

INTRODUCTION. 5 minutes. Moderator comments, per moderator. However, the introduction will conclude with a verbatim quotation of the official agreed-upon description of the event to establish its purpose for the audience. Proposed language: "This event is designed as a proving ground for the existence of the God of the Christian Holy Bible. The Christian side is here to prove to us that the God of their Holy Bible exists. The skeptic side is here to listen to that proof and then critically examine it. Because the Christian side is accepting the burden of proof, the Christian speakers will be given a large block of time at the outset to present their argument. This argument will set the agenda for the rest of the dialogue. The definition of God for the purpose of this event will be: "[Christian provides this definition]." The Christian side will now present its proof that the God of the Christian Holy Bible exists."

CHRISTIAN SIDE presents its proof. 20 minutes [or whatever time Christian side says it needs].

SKEPTIC SIDE responds to the proof. 10 minutes.

CHRISTIAN SIDE responds to that response. 5 minutes

MODERATED DIALOGUE. 45 minutes. Questions are presented in a cycle in this order: Skeptic question to Christian, Christian question to Skeptic, audience question to Christian, audience question to Skeptic. The moderator will choose audience questions based on their relevance to the event's topic and the content of the discussion at that time. The moderator may interject his/her questions at any point. No time allotments on individual questions -- the moderator's job is to get a direct answer from the side being questioned and then move the discussion along. However, to make sure neither side feels it has been unfairly silenced on a certain point, either side may request the floor and directly address the audience without interruption. Each side has 10 minutes worth of this exclusive floor time, which it can use whenever and however it wishes during the discussion. For example, if one side feels it is not being heard on a certain point, it can demand the floor, speak directly to the audience for two minutes, and then that side will have 8 minutes of floor time left to use in a similar manner during the Moderated Dialogue section.

The Moderated Dialogue section is preceded by a verbatim quotation of an agreed-upon statement outlining the rules. Proposed language: "This event is labeled a 'confrontational dialogue' because now that the Christian side has presented its case, it will be confronted by challenges from the Skeptic side, which can in turn be challenged by the Christian side. My job as moderator is to insist that each side directly answer any questions put to them, and not to accept evasions, changes of subject or fillibustering. I also have a mandate to keep the discussion on topic, and the topic is the specific merits of the Christian side's argument that the God of the Holy Bible exists. However, if either side determines that it would like to make a direct presentation to the audience outside the bounds of the dialogue, it may request the floor. Each side has ten minutes each for these impromptu presentations, which they may use whenever and however they wish."

SKEPTIC evaluation of the proof. 10 minutes.

CHRISTIAN response to that evaluation. 5 minutes.

AUDIENCE VOTE. Moderator: "Please note that the question you are about to vote on is not whether you believe God exists or does not. The question is about the specific argument you heard from the Christian side on this stage tonight. Here is the question you are voting on: Did the argument for God you heard tonight demonstrate that God exists?" Vote.

CONCLUSION. Moderator's final remarks.

THE PRINTED PROGRAM STATEMENTS:

The participants in this event agreed upon the title and structure of this event weeks in advance. They also agreed on the following statement:

"This event is designed as a proving ground for the existence of the God of the Christian Holy Bible. The Christian side is here to prove to us that the God of their Holy Bible exists. The skeptic side is here to listen to that proof and then critically examine it. Because the Christian side is accepting the burden of proof, the Christian speakers will be given a large block of time at the outset to present their proof. This proof will set the agenda for the rest of the dialogue."

proof n.: A convincing or persuasive demonstration.

The definition of God for the purpose of this event will be: "[Christian provides this definition]."