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

[Mudhammam]

I agree. It's only when you look further into the justifications of Thor and Loki that their possibility of existence fails. That's what a good concept is: possible.

But in terms of the Bible, now wow, that is some factual history for ya.

[robvalue]

Sure, no you can't falsify a supernatural claim either, in general. If I say meta-wind is a necessary component of all real-wind movements, you can't prove me wrong. You can't prove me right either. That's why unfalsifiable claims are useless. You can make as many as you want, about anything. You cannot assign any sort of probability to it being true or false, as we have no experience of it. So the probability of anything to do with a supernatural God is unknown. Having no information does not mean that you know it's as likely as not. You don't even know if it possible it can exist at all.

If I claim I have a supernatural friend who could destroy the universe any time he wanted, and eats the meta-essence out of snooker balls, that's also unfalsifiable. Therefor, it's useless.

I'd like to do a little probability now, I used to be a maths teacher so SHUT UP and pay attention. Good. Wow, that never worked when I was a teacher.

I have a normal six sided die in a cup. I shake it all around nicely, then slam the cup down, with no one being able to see which way the dice has fallen. Including me.

Now I claim that the dice is showing a 6. This could be true, it could be false. No one can know, so they have to make up their own decision based on probability. But there are only two possibilities; it's a six, as I claim, or its not a six. Therefor, it's a 50/50 guess.

No it isn't. Two possibilities do not indicate a 50/50 split. In this case, you use what you know, your evidence, past experience and logic to determine that the probability the claim is true is 1/6. This is a clear cut situation, but it demonstrates the point.

Now, if someone is making a claim about something we don't understand, it's either right or wrong but we have no idea how to measure the probability. So saying it is 50 50 is just a guess. And an unhelpful guess which is almost certainly wrong.

I'm not continuing to debate, I have given up, but I thought that example may be useful.

[Nope]

I agree. It's only when you look further into the justifications of Thor and Loki that their possibility of existence fails. That's what a good concept is: possible.

Because there are modern followers of Norse paganism, I am gong to guess that they have tweaked their religion enough to make it seem plausible to them. Maybe I should have used Odin because there is a legend about him hanging for several days to bring knowledge to humans. He seems like a god that could fit in with modern beliefs quite nicely.

[robvalue]

Actually I'm gonna post a video I've used before because I think it's really relevant.

The correct answer to "Is it possible there is a God" is "I don't know". I don't know if it's possible. It might be possible. It might be impossible. Let Tracie Harris take it from here, I found this thought provoking. It takes the whole 50/50 thing to a new level.

http://youtu.be/LqNDrOxhZho

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='830775' dateline='1419855250']

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

Stated but not explained. [bin]

No accepted current scientific theories posit a god as part of them.
As science is a dispassionate way of viewing the totality of existence then all the experts in every field that counts refute the idea that a god exists at all and the abrahamic god fails even as a vague possibility.
Its effects would have been too far reaching and deep but every time people looked for the proof none has been forth coming.
So theists go, " but ah its unknowable" or "ah its outside of time" or " ah we can't know the mind of god" all cop outs that let them cling to their bronze age beliefs.
You can safely bin the idea of a god.

[fr0d0]

Sure, no you can't falsify a supernatural claim either, in general. If I say meta-wind is a necessary component of all real-wind movements, you can't prove me wrong. You can't prove me right either. That's why unfalsifiable claims are useless. You can make as many as you want, about anything. You cannot assign any sort of probability to it being true or false, as we have no experience of it. So the probability of anything to do with a supernatural God is unknown. Having no information does not mean that you know it's as likely as not. You don't even know if it possible it can exist at all.

If I claim I have a supernatural friend who could destroy the universe any time he wanted, and eats the meta-essence out of snooker balls, that's also unfalsifiable. Therefor, it's useless.

I'd like to do a little probability now, I used to be a maths teacher so SHUT UP and pay attention. Good. Wow, that never worked when I was a teacher.

I have a normal six sided die in a cup. I shake it all around nicely, then slam the cup down, with no one being able to see which way the dice has fallen. Including me.

Now I claim that the dice is showing a 6. This could be true, it could be false. No one can know, so they have to make up their own decision based on probability. But there are only two possibilities; it's a six, as I claim, or its not a six. Therefor, it's a 50/50 guess.

No it isn't. Two possibilities do not indicate a 50/50 split. In this case, you use what you know, your evidence, past experience and logic to determine that the probability the claim is true is 1/6. This is a clear cut situation, but it demonstrates the point.

Now, if someone is making a claim about something we don't understand, it's either right or wrong but we have no idea how to measure the probability. So saying it is 50 50 is just a guess. And an unhelpful guess which is almost certainly wrong.

I'm not continuing to debate, I have given up, but I thought that example may be useful.

You can't just conjure up any random notion and promote it royally to a coherent theory. That's the difference between everything else and the coherent God theory. That's what we're after. Time wasting not required.

Go stand in the corridor!

---

I agree. It's only when you look further into the justifications of Thor and Loki that their possibility of existence fails. That's what a good concept is: possible.

Because there are modern followers of Norse paganism, I am gong to guess that they have tweaked their religion enough to make it seem plausible to them. Maybe I should have used Odin because there is a legend about him hanging for several days to bring knowledge to humans. He seems like a god that could fit in with modern beliefs quite nicely.

The important thing is that your concept hold water. If I can find any holes in it I'll dismiss it. It's quite easy really.

---

No accepted current scientific theories posit a god as part of them.

I knew I could bank on science. Good call.

As science is a dispassionate way of viewing the totality of existence then all the experts in every field that counts refute the idea that a god exists at all and the abrahamic god fails even as a vague possibility.

Science refutes God?! Evidence please! (I'll assume that you're lying unless you can prove otherwise)

Its effects would have been too far reaching and deep but every time people looked for the proof none has been forth coming.

Yes of course. Evidence of the supernatural. Haha!

So theists go, " but ah its unknowable" or "ah its outside of time" or " ah we can't know the mind of god" all cop outs that let them cling to their bronze age beliefs.
You can safely bin the idea of a god.

On no evidence. Now you wouldn't want me to do that would you? That would be a double standard from you. Tsk tsk!

[JesusChristLover]

We'll play by a few simple rules:
I. No personal attacks
II. No Threats of Eternal Damnation
III. You cannot use anecdotal evidence to support your claims (i.e. "My mother saw God when she had a near-death incident and she talked to Jesus")

I'll also play by a few rules. Just because you are an Atheist doesn't mean you get to set the platform for debate.

1. Yes, no personal attacks.
2. No Threats of Eternal Damnation, except where there is conclusive proof that it is deserved.
3. Unless the evidence has been presented with testable proof.
4. All rules of debate on this forum will supersede our above demands, if there is a conflict.

[fr0d0]

@ Rob

Finally had time to watch the video. Nice debunk of gnostic theism/ atheism. He said "stupid" har har

[Whateverist]

2. No Threats of Eternal Damnation, except where there is conclusive proof that it is deserved.

Because you won't be able to resist and, really, it's your best argument. Hell, even you wouldn't believe this shit without a healthy fear of damnation. But how useful have you found it to warn atheists of damnation as a way of persuading them of God's existence?

[abaris]

Hell, even you wouldn't believe this shit without a healthy fear of damnation. But how useful have you found it to warn atheists of damnation as a way of persuading them of God's existence?

Threatening with eternal damnation seems about as useful as aiming an empty water pistol at us.