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

[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.