Any Theists on AF, I Challenge You to a Debate on the Existence of God

[fr0d0]

The important point being, it's aimed at me who doesn't say or think that and never has.

In fact I think it's a myth. I've mixed with people from many denominations none of whom think that.

[robvalue]

It wasn't aimed at you, sorry if you thought that. I was borrowing your catchphrase there, sure. When I make sweeping statements like that, I am bashing religion as a whole. That's always the case unless I'm addressing specific points. I guess I assumed you thought that also, but I didn't mean to express that explicitly, apologies.

I take your word for it, but I'd be very surprised if you find more theists than not who don't think this is true.

OK well let's try, other theists: was the universe created just for us? Or does God have other considerations or reasons for making the universe or whatever?

In fact, I don't think I've ever heard a single theist disagree with that. But I'm willing to be proved wrong. Other atheists, what is your experience? Do theists generally think the universe is here just for us?

[A Fisherman]

I accept the challenge you may debate me.

before we start we must agree to terms.
What source shall we use for the Definition of the word God?

Websters says God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

Or reference.com has it as
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

they capitalized Supreme being not me so it is a proper noun.

Or there are a bunch of religious texts we could draw from such as the Bible old or new.
or anything from the lost books of the Bible or 'The Other Bible'.

How do you define God?

So that we may know we are talking about the same thing before we begin

[tantric]

Hmm, don't think this is going to work. I was thinking of something more universal - the Atman, the self-awareness of the universe. It doesn't do anything, nor did it create the universe. The idea is that a universe separate from sentient life cannot exist, except in imagination. Such a world is inherent unknowable, thus the universe itself must be aware. Give me a bit and I'll come back with something more concrete.

[Surgenator]

Everything is a process, nothing is static, its all ever flowing, even objects that we can touch are flowing, each time we touch it its never the same as before, its like stepping into a river, you can never step into the same river. So what we know as objects are again through the senses, and this whole Cosmos of flowing is God, or whatever name you like, its all a mystery, you and I well never get it.

I'll simplify. There are objects and actions (,stuff and their interactions). A process is a series of actions. Objects change through actions; otherwise, they're static. Objects can be percieved with our senses. We can only infer the actions by percieving the before and after states of objects.

What (I think) you are saying is objects and actions are the samething. I completely disagree with this proposition. How you arrive at God from this is nonsensical. I also find ironic that you say "tis all a mystery, you and I well never get it" is prefaced with "this whole Cosmos of flowing is God." If it is a mystery that you can never get, you do not get to tell me what it is.

[psychoslice]

The God of Abraham or a more generic God? For the sake of it, I might debate the existence of Brahmā with you.

I can't debate the existence of what cannot be known by the mind, everything there is, is the Source, everything comes from the Source, and everything go's back to the Source, just like waves on the ocean.

[Surgenator]

You've been watching too much Highlander.

[psychoslice]

Well by creator I mean who (if anyone) created what we think of as reality. I don't think there is one either. But it's possible we are in a simulation, or our "universe" as it appears is confined within some larger reality.

I'm not saying it's likely. But my point is, even if it's true, we know nothing about the creator. And it's possible we never will. What people have at the moment are fictions.

I find it far more likely that we're either the only reality there is, or an offshoot from some other reality that got fragmented somehow. Creators come a weak third, the most likely of which is some sort of simulator.

In my opinion of course I'm not making claims that what I'm saying is true, it's just my evaluation.

Its good that you have your own evaluation, and that's the way it should be. Most repeat what they have been told, we all must find our own way to what life is truly all about. What we find we can incorporate within our life, we don't need to prove that to anyone else, for everyone else must also find their own way of understanding what life is to them.

---

Thinking that humans are so important as to be the sole purposes of the vast expanse of the cosmos, almost all of which is deadly to humans, and despite the fact that most of our planet is also uninhabitable, and that the creator loves us even though there are people starving and suffering all the time...

That is BS.

Especially since humans evolved billions of years after the universe was in place, and our planet will eventually not support us any more. We're here for a cosmic blink, then apparently everything is worthless forever.

If you think that's designed for us... Well.

I like the way you think, makes sense.

[Jenny A]

To be selfish is think of ones-self foremost without regard to the rights, comforts, or needs of others. Believing that the universe is not made for people and no god is looking out for people, might make one more aware that one is dependent on oneself and others, but it hardly leads to selfish behavior with regard to others. Atheists don't appear to be generally selfish, nor theists generally selfless.

So you have no safe guards or checks and you don't think about it but you're confident that your led by altruistic motives? BS.

And you think that submitting to an overarching positive influence leads to egotistical living? Again... BS.

You insist upon moving the target from what exists, to whether those trying to determine what exists are moral. That is the ultimate ad hominem dodge and intellectually dishonest. If I'm right that there there is no evidence of god, whether I'm a good person has nothing to do with it, unless you are arguing that people who have found god are better people (good luck with that) and that their betterness is evidence of god. If so, so so plainly, because Christians do not appear any more moral, or less selfish to me. Nor does their virtue, if any, evidence of a divine being, only the efficacy of a belief system.

[fr0d0]

I'm not moving the target Jenny I'm following your diversion here. We've covered that I'm addressing reality/ not ever discounting it, and you moved onto trying to make me/ faith out to be selfish whilst promoting yourself as morally pure on your own steam. You see the problem with that? Good. Now carry on with your self delusion.