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

[professor]

Rob, somewhere in the realm of thinking, there is a line where you pass through the land of Belief into the rarified highlands of Knowing.
This can happen fast, or over a period of time.

The piling up of information, experiences and clues is what brings one to this position.
I realize the above is hard to take here, as relativism has a better hold on minds than quicksand would have on an elephant.
I am not a debater, so I am not signing up for that.
Here is what I know to not be BS:
The Way, where we are in time, the identity of the false messiah, demonstrable cause and effect science, mathematics....
Many other things can have the scent of BS if you get downwind from it.

[thesummerqueen]

Someone sounds like he's read the DaVinci Code too many times.

[Jenny A]

Theists don't come to belief through proof of existence. They "believe in God". Not through any physical evidence. This is the basic mistake the title makes. The op seems to have started off by barking up completely the wrong tree.

I agree absolutely that most theists don't come to belief in god through physical evidence. It would be shocking if they did, since there doesn't appear to be any. Typically, faith without proof in the form of miracles, is rewarded more highly by Jesus than belief with proof. And despite the miracles in both the OT and NT, much of the Bible is concerned with dealing with doubt.

To the extent there is any proof, the OP rightly did away with it by removing anecdotal tales. And I know a couple of people who believe sorta vaguely in god for reasons like that. But most people who believe claim an inner confirmation of some kind which they feel is god.

I suspect it is the serious doubters that are interested in outside proof. They need to bolster their belief. And once a belief is formed, people tend to be willing to continue to believe on much less substantial evidence then they ever would have accepted before belief. Having accepted that less than satisfactory proof to bolster their faith, they come full circle and think they can prove god. What they haven't done consider what that evidence would look like to those who aren't trying desperately to hang onto faith. If they did that, they might lose their faith altogether.

If the OT gets any takers, it's going to be doubters who have propped up their faith with less than adequate evidence. I think we have a few of those here.

[fr0d0]

Requiring physical proof is a weakness of mind. Dealing with the doubt is the struggle of faith. Balancing knowledge that cannot have absolute substantiation.

[abaris]

If the OT gets any takers, it's going to be doubters who have propped up their faith with less than adequate evidence. I think we have a few of those here.

Mostly we have pickers and choosers. Like Drich, who outright claims, the OT is no longer valid, but when it suits his needs, he's not shy about using it.

[thesummerqueen]

Requiring physical proof is a weakness of mind. Dealing with the doubt is the struggle of faith. Balancing knowledge that cannot have absolute substantiation.

I love it when requiring proof is considered weakness. I call it "practicality". A god which requires you to go on faith is synonymous with the spouse who says "If you don't know then I won't tell you."

[fr0d0]

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.

[robvalue]

Blimey mate. I can prove anything is true with this theistic logic app. You just type in what you want to be true, and it says on the screen, "Yeah no worries mate, that's true!"

---

Oh yeah, I forgot to say, I'm god. So that should clear things up.

I just know. I have a feeling inside. A godlike one, cos I'm god right?

Good. And god has no need to prove himself.

*Looks down trousers*

Yep, god's a him.

[fr0d0]

Yours is a strange universe Rob

[Nope]

Requiring physical proof is a weakness of mind. Dealing with the doubt is the struggle of faith. Balancing knowledge that cannot have absolute substantiation.

Can you provide one example, outside of religion, where not wanting physical proof is not the sign of a crazy person? If I walk into the street because, despite the evidence to the contrary, I believe that cars are made of marshmallows, hopefully someone will take me to a psych ward before I kill myself. Why should proof of god be different?

I accept that you don't need logic for your faith; however, requiring physical proof is how normal minds differentiate between fantasy and reality.