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

[robvalue]

In case I've caused confusion, my position is that a claim about reality being logically consistent with reality is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the claim to be true.

[fr0d0]

Now the information that we possess and accept on the problem are not the same, hence the different stances on belief.

I don't understand what this means. What information do you have that I don't? What information are you accepting that I don't?

Logical proofs of God. What you and I understand are different which is why we believe differently. I accept religious information to be true. You understand it some other way besides true information. We have the same availability of information but can interpret that information individually. No two persons have the same understanding.

You agree there is no supernatural evidence. Therefor there is no logical reason to believe anything supernatural even exists. Just because we define something using words, it doesn't in any way make it real, or even possible.

I don't agree that there is no supernatural evidence. I think supernatural evidence is a logical fallacial statement that needs exorcising.

It definitely does not follow that it is logical to believe that nothing supernatural exists. Again, that is totally illogical. You cannot know, so you cannot comment on what you don't know. you have no way of finding out. Because we can define something logically makes the existence of something logical logically possible. We don't KNOW if it exists or not. This is our only correct scientific conclusion.

Again, it sounds to me like you're using a totally different way to come to conclusions than me (and other sceptics). You seem to be changing the level of evidence you are willing to accept for a claim based on how much you want the claim to be true. That's fine, but to call it logic is misguided.

You seem to be making claims with no relation to science or logic. I don't find that meets my standard for 'skeptic'.

Plum has it right, something being possible does not in any way demonstrate that it is true.

That's why I said it was 50/50 yes.

---

fr0d0 I would agree that it is highly unlikely that there will be natural explanation for the supernatural. However before placing that claim please establish the plausibility of the 'supernatural'.

I claim to believe in a supernatural entity, to be clear. It's plausibility rests in its application. It explains purpose.

[Whateverist]

Faith necessitates reason. No one believes without reason. Same as no one disbelieves without reason. Those reasons may be spurious, but they're reasons to disbelieve nonetheless (that last bit is jest )

You can tell just how far I've waded into this thread by how far back this quote goes. So maybe my point has already been made. Regardless, I wonder whether faith really necessitates reason or just rationalization. If the latter, then religious belief is far from unique. All of us embrace values which are primary enough that they can only be reasoned from, not to. For these, all one can do is put the best spin possible on them but they never rise to the level of a reasoned position IMO.

[robvalue]

I give up for good now. But thanks for the debate

The very last point I will make is that you seem to be confusing belief with claims of knowledge. To say you believe something is true, or don't believe it is true, is not a knowledge statement. It's an evaluation of probability, and whether a claim is convincing to you by whatever standards you use.

[fr0d0]

If you define supernatural as "not in reality" then you've kind of snookered yourself, because that's exactly the same as "not existing".

I don't define it as that. God is in this reality, as well as existing outside of it. Supernatural is in my understanding, natural+.

[robvalue]

Sure, I can never demonstrate convincingly, even to myself, that I actually exist. I have to assume that I do, and then assume what I experience of reality is in some way a fair representation of an actual reality.

I can never know these things, nor can I ever believe them because of any argument. All I can do is assume that they are true, for practical reasons. I try to make as few assumptions as possible, after this point. Instead I use evidence and reason, wherever possible, to come to probability ratings about what is and isn't true.

(This is of course addressing solipsism.)

For what it's worth, I am far from convinced that my solipsism assumptions are correct. All I can pragmatically squeeze from them is that this appears to be some coherent representation of something, real or not, and it appears I can learn about it.

[fr0d0]

Now the information that we possess and accept on the problem are not the same, hence the different stances on belief. Given my understanding, you would have to believe in deity, you would have no choice. The logical evidence is overwhelming.

The logical evidence is overwhelmingly in opposition to the existence of god.

Stated but not explained. [bin]

Likewise, given your understanding, I would have to disbelieve. I wouldn't have any choice either.

But there is only one "truth" it just so happens that we are right because we can prove the majority of what we believe and for other things we can say we don't know.
We don't have to fall back on the god cop out for our explanations.

And where are you saying that I fall back on a "god cop out"? I don't ever and I'd like you to help me weed out anything I may have missed.

[Whateverist]

You're never going to know the sincerity of your lovers feelings towards you tsq only your feeling towards them (I'd hope). And that's the most precious thing we have.

Requiring some proof before belief does not require being devoid of faith in others, emotion, or love for that matter. I do have faith in others' love for me. But that faith is based on experience, and past a certain point, I would cease to believe in a particular person's love, were it contradicted with any regularity. And I wouldn't say someone who had faith in the love of an abusive partner had strength of mind, quite the contrary.

But, and it is a major but, I've never had to have faith in the existence of people who love me. I have plenty of evidence of their physical existence. I don't have faith in an imaginary friend's love.

That probably goes a long way toward getting at why religion persists. The knowing of another person requires a great deal of projection. In deed we can take their pulse and provide a decent description unlike with God. But when it comes to assessing their character and predicting their intentions, we do as we must rely on empathy which circles back on our selves. That so much of knowing another relies on our knowing ourselves helps to explain how one can develop a sense of the presence of God. One can -apparently- carry on a relationship with God whether or not He exists. Weirder and weirder.

[fr0d0]

Your logic is that you need to see natural evidence of something not natural/ supernatural. It doesn't get any more illogical than that for me.

Logic point #1. Please show me how that is wrong.

Please point me to a logical statement that I've made about my beliefs that you find fallacial or unsound.

I don't know why I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. The problem is probably with me. Couldn't your same arguments be used to prove that anything nonexistent exists such as Santa?


'Your logic is that you need to see natural evidence of something not natural/supernatural like Santa. It doesn't get more illogical than that for me."

Your interest in proving Santa is one of plain existence. As I'm not claiming any knowledge at all of existence, this question is pointless.

My comment you refer to is about the nonsense of such questions.

---

As far as I understand it, he reasons god into existence because he wants a god existing. So the whole chain is broken, since the goal is already predefined. There's actually a term for that kind of reasoning, but right now it escapes my mind.

For me it was actually the other way round on my way to atheism. I wanted a god to exist, but when I tried to atribute god's existence with any kind of reason, I always came up empty in light of knowledge. So I came to the conclusion, you'd have to suspend knowledge in order to believe. And that's certainly not where I wanted to go.

I don't want God to exist. I can't escape the inevitable truth. I was skeptical and harshly anti the thought of God. It made no impact on my life and I was happily existing without it. I researched the information as it came to me and found the proof undeniable. I acted on that information and experienced God in person for myself. If I didn't have this understanding I could believe otherwise. If I could suspend knowledge I could disbelieve. I'm sure that's not what you'd want me to do though.

[watchamadoodle]

IMO it's not fair to say that we can't prove or disprove supernatural claims. Supernatural claims often explain the natural world, and those explainations can be tested.

For example, most Christians believe that prayers are granted when God is willing, and they believe certain things about God's will. So people have tested prayers, and the prayers always fail to have any effect. Christians excuse the failure of these prayers, by saying that God's will is hard to know, but then they treat the Bible like a legal agreement with God. It's cherry picking.