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

[abaris]

God affects everything in my opinion because that is my belief. This understanding is from logic. If you've followed the conversation, you will already know that I've stated that there can be no evidence for this. So why are you asking for it?

Because in my opinion, logic asks for evidence. Your definition of logic seems to be entirely different from mine. I fully respect belief in something, but belief isn't in any way related to logic or reason. In fact, in my book, it's the absence of logic and reason. Otherwise there would be a great many questions to be answered.

[fr0d0]

lCan you explain why you think that is a mess?

It's a lot of orphaned assumptions masquerading as truths.

"If God were timeless, everything else would have to be?" Really?

" Everything just is ". It is??

Origins are not the subject of religion. Genesis is not about origins. Cosmology deals with origins. That's science. Me, I defer to science. Currently: we don't know.

[abaris]

Currently: we don't know.

Yes, but you're filling the gaps with a supernatural being. That's not logical, since everything in the world as we know it points to the absence of the supernatural and the rule of natural laws.

[fr0d0]

God affects everything in my opinion because that is my belief. This understanding is from logic. If you've followed the conversation, you will already know that I've stated that there can be no evidence for this. So why are you asking for it?

Because in my opinion, logic asks for evidence. Your definition of logic seems to be entirely different from mine. I fully respect belief in something, but belief isn't in any way related to logic or reason. In fact, in my book, it's the absence of logic and reason. Otherwise there would be a great many questions to be answered.

That's not logic. That's scientific fact based information. Those facts may logically link. But the logical link is retrofit. Pure logic can be unrestricted. Mathematical purity isn't so much found in nature, only in theory.

You're presented here with a subject that absolutely defies evidence, yet strictly adheres to logic. Address it or don't, are your options.

---

Currently: we don't know.

Yes, but you're filling the gaps with a supernatural being. That's not logical, since everything in the world as we know it points to the absence of the supernatural and the rule of natural laws.

How am I gap filling by saying that I don't know? That's a scientific answer. Please tell me where I'm making a scientific claim about the supernatural, or vice versa.

[IATIA]

God affects everything in my opinion because that is my belief. This understanding is from logic. If you've followed the conversation, you will already know that I've stated that there can be no evidence for this.

How can there be no evidence for logic? Logic is based on evidential premises.

[abaris]

How am I gap filling by saying that I don't know? That's a scientific answer. Please tell me where I'm making a scientific claim about the supernatural, or vice versa.

My answer still applies. You're believing in a supernatural being regardless. Nothing in the world and the universe as we know it points to the supernatural. So how can logic come up with something supernatural?

[fr0d0]

lLogic is based on evidential premises.

Prove it

---

How am I gap filling by saying that I don't know? That's a scientific answer. Please tell me where I'm making a scientific claim about the supernatural, or vice versa.

My answer still applies. You're believing in a supernatural being regardless. Nothing in the world and the universe as we know it points to the supernatural. So how can logic come up with something supernatural?

Regardless of what? Conflicting evidence? Such as what? I hold these beliefs and am telling you that nothing conflicts.

What would point to something supernatural? I assume you're talking about natural evidence? How can you logically justify that statement? It looks illogical to me: natural evidence of the supernatural.

[abaris]

Prove it

No, you tell us on what you base your logic for the existence of god. You claim to base your knowledge on the same premises as we all do. You have to throw some of your knowledge overboard to allow logic to arrive at something supernatural defying natural laws.

[watchamadoodle]

With respect, I shall wait for doodles response, as I don't want to repeat myself. It would be rude to carry on without him, even though these might be his questions exactly. I'll wait for him to confirm that.

Those are similar to my questions.

Here is a thread where I asked for ideas about how supernatural could interface to natural scientifically. Alex K suggested that supernatural could utilize the randomness in quantum mechanics.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30172.html

Even if we allow that supernatural could affect natural, shouldn't there be some evidence of this effect? I know it is difficult, because any failure can be excused by saying "the Lord works in mysterious ways."

In my case the slow, stumbling evolution of Judaism and Christainity makes me skeptical about divine inspiration. How do you feel about that issue?

How much do you trust the narratives in the gospels? How much is factual? What do you think Jesus meant by the title "Son of Man"? Have you read Bart Ehrman's books about the gospels?

[IATIA]

What would point to something supernatural? I assume you're talking about natural evidence? How can you logically justify that statement? It looks illogical to me: natural evidence of the supernatural.

Nothing would point to something supernatural (because it does not exist) and that is the point. However, you just said, previously, "God affects everything in my opinion because that is my belief. This understanding is from logic.".