Outsmarted by a Christian, need help to contradict

[Edwardo Piet]

I just don't think its possible for an atheist to 'lose a debate' against a theist though...theists have already lost by default until they have provided evidence.

That's such an arrogant statement. Sorry to say EvF, but you have no idea how debates on philosophy work. Nobody has "lost by default" because in the whole concept of philosophy is to give no absolute answers. The whole philosophical debate is all about presenting the best logical argument of your position.

Now if we were talking about scientific debate, then yes. You couldn't publish a scientific paper on "The existence of God" without providing empirical evidence to support it. It would get rejected, and the theists (and atheists) have both lost the scientific debate by default. This is why science has no position on the existence of the so-called "supernatural". As soon as it does have a position on something supernatural, that supernatural becomes natural.

Philosophical debates are all about scoring points using logic. It doesn't matter about the reality of the situation, because the debate isn't about reality, it is about logic. If you make bad logical arguments, you lose the debate.

IS it a philosophical debate? I didn't actually know that. Why doesn't science have a place here? The existence of God isn't outside science is it? Science deals with existence claims and the debate starts with evidence for the existence of God to be provided right?

Why doesn't science come into it?

If you are saying its merely a philosophical debate...then would it be treated the same with the FSM or Zeus? Rather...would anyone even be having a philosophical debate over that? I think "God" gets special treatment.

So if a believer in Zeus or the FSM was in a debate and I said something fallacious like "Zeus/the FSM DEFINITELY doesn't exist" and made fallacious arguments I would have lost the debate then? Wouldn't the Zeus or FSM believer need to provide some support for their belief first...I mean even if its a philosophical debate? Would we really be having a debate over Zeus or the FSM? And if the idea would be laughable with them...shouldn't it be the same with "God"?

Why is it treated any different with "God" than with Zeus or the FSM?

And why isn't the debate considered scientific? And if it IS indeed to be merely considered philosophical...would a believer in Zeus or the FSM not need any support for their belief either? And if someone presented fallacious arguments against them would the Zeus/FSM believer have 'won the debate'? Where's the debate? Is this that debatable? I mean sure if it IS just a philosophical debate...but does this still really start on an even-footing here? Wouldn't a Zeus/FSM believer not be given a debate? Wouldn't they just be laughed at? Or someone who believes that Elvis is still alive? You COULD have a philosophical debate over those things too....but it would be considered laughable and waste of time for those things to be given special treatment over so many weird supernatural or paranormal things wouldn't it? Why should "God" be given what it seems to be, special treatment over Zeus or the FSM?

I know that God, Zeus or FSM are not disproved....and you cannot absolutely say people who believe in either of them are wrong...but surely the fact that they are huge beliefs that are completely unsupported counts for something? Even in a philosophical debate...because it seems to be treated differently over Zeus and the FSM for example...if this is an even-footing thing, shouldn't we be spending equal time debating over all the other countless possible Gods too? Zeus, the FSM or whatever?

So like I said: Why isn't it considered a scientific debate anyway? Science doesn't need absolute proof or disproof....but the burden is still on the believer in such unsupported supernatural beliefs. Science deals with existence, right?

And if this was chosen as just a philosophical debate then I didn't realize it was. I thought it was just a debate I didn't know a philosophical debate was specified. I saw no reason for why science shouldn't/didn't fit into the equation.

EvF