(March 20, 2019 at 9:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Every single serious logical argument for the existence of god contains at least one disputed, contested premise.

Oh my. Just now you were saying you didn't know what field to use, and now you're saying that you have mastered every single serious logical argument for the existence of god. 

May I ask where you learned that all arguments are flawed?

(March 20, 2019 at 9:24 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 9:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: When you eliminate any and all empirical and/or testable things...well...I'm not sure what's left, lol.

The fact that you're not sure what's left tells me that you haven't studied the field much. 

Traditionally, metaphysical issues are studied by philosophy, and when they relate to God, by theology.

Yet you haven't really answered my question, have you?  I would like to know what reliable method can one apply to these fields of study in order to have the best chance at reaching a true answer to the question, "does a god exist?"  The scientific method works because it's reliable, meaning it produces demonstrable evidence, and can make predictions.  If you're ruling out one reliable method for ascertaining the truth of a claim, you need to replace it with another one, otherwise how could you investigate the claim at all?  Worse than that, how could you be sure you're actually doing any investigating?  Investigation typically produces evidence. You need a method, and it needs to be reliable.  Otherwise, you're just sitting around with your thumb up your ass.

(March 20, 2019 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I would like to know what reliable method can one apply to these fields of study in order to have the best chance at reaching a true answer to the question, "does a god exist?"

Some things are known through logic. Then you can hold them up to the real world and see if they're compatible. But it may be that no certainty is possible.

(March 20, 2019 at 9:31 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 9:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Every single serious logical argument for the existence of god contains at least one disputed, contested premise.

Oh my. Just now you were saying you didn't know what field to use, and now you're saying that you have mastered every single serious logical argument for the existence of god. 

May I ask where you learned that all arguments are flawed?

I didn't say they were flawed.  I said they contain premises that are contested, meaning a lot of people are not convinced they are sound. And, it's on the folks making the arguments to demonstrate to that they are sound.

(March 20, 2019 at 9:37 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I would like to know what reliable method can one apply to these fields of study in order to have the best chance at reaching a true answer to the question, "does a god exist?"

Some things are known through logic. Then you can hold them up to the real world and see if they're compatible. But it may be that no certainty is possible.

How could one learn anything about the existence of a god through logic alone?  You'd have to define god first, which would require that you know something about him.

(March 20, 2019 at 9:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 9:37 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Some things are known through logic. Then you can hold them up to the real world and see if they're compatible. But it may be that no certainty is possible.

How could one learn anything about the existence of a god through logic alone?  You'd have to define god first, which would require that you know something about him.

 Logic 101 : Logic is not used as a general way or arriving at truth.   Contrary to Mr Spock, logic dictates nothing , it implies, or suggests .

 All formal logical argument begins with IF A-----------

An inference  (logical conclusion) may be declared as true IF AND ONLY IF the premise is also true. I.E. IF A is true--then a truth claim may be inferred (concluded), but not otherwise 

The claim that "some things are known through logic" is technically correct, but disingenuous. It, gives the false impression that logic is commonly used to arrive at a truth .

@Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate. Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

(March 20, 2019 at 11:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate.  Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

Right, logic requires sound premises. People disagree on which premises are sound. 

But I really don't intend to get into discussing the arguments with you. I've done this on various Internet sites, including the infamous The [S]inking Atheist now-defunct forum, and had no luck at all. People get emotional and angry even when I try to differentiate an essential causal series from a temporal one. I don't believe anymore that such arguments can be had on sites like this. 

But I hope we can agree that the premises on which both atheists and believers operate are things that can be challenged, defended, and discussed. That is the point I have been trying to stick to. Just that both sides have reasons, and both sides have a burden of proof. The statement "you have no evidence" is not an unchallengeable statement when 99% of people in world history have thought they had evidence.

(March 21, 2019 at 2:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 11:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate.  Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

Right, logic requires sound premises. People disagree on which premises are sound. 

But I really don't intend to get into discussing the arguments with you. I've done this on various Internet sites, including the infamous The [S]inking Atheist now-defunct forum, and had no luck at all. People get emotional and angry even when I try to differentiate an essential causal series from a temporal one. I don't believe anymore that such arguments can be had on sites like this. 

But I hope we can agree that the premises on which both atheists and believers operate are things that can be challenged, defended, and discussed. That is the point I have been trying to stick to. Just that both sides have reasons, and both sides have a burden of proof. The statement "you have no evidence" is not an unchallengeable statement when 99% of people in world history have thought they had evidence.

If you say "a god exists" and i say "I don't believe you" what burden of proof could I possibly have?

(March 21, 2019 at 5:46 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: If you say "a god exists" and i say "I don't believe you" what burden of proof could I possibly have?

Why don't you believe that proposition? Do you have a reason?