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

[fr0d0]

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.

I'm asking for proof of a positive claim. He made it, let him defend it.

Obviously in not claiming any compromise of natural laws.

---

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?

Your question on the natural link to the supernatural breaks my logic conditions. You're going to have to prove to me logically how the supernatural and natural could interact.

I'm not saying that that's impossible, I'm just saying that without a toolkit to match that of a supernatural entity, we are I'll equipped.

The slow stumbling evolution of world faiths is evidence of a slow understanding of divinity. Christianity is in my opinion simply the last evolutionary step in that direction. It may be superseded.

I've read mins posts for several years so I feel that I know Bart Ehrman personally. I garnish that with a modest sprinkling of opposing views and come to the conclusion that I do. Factual isn't a label I put on the Bible. I know why I use it and it's purpose.

[IATIA]

I say there is flying spaghetti monster.

I have eaten spaghetti.

Richard Dawkins says there is a flying spaghetti monster.

Therefore, there is a flying spaghetti monster.

[fr0d0]

I say there is flying spaghetti monster.

I have eaten spaghetti.

Richard Dawkins says there is a flying spaghetti monster.

Therefore, there is a flying spaghetti monster.

Answer your question

[Foxaèr]

The only question any theist need answer, a question the theist cannot seem to satisfactorily answer whatsoever, is Can you provide evidence for your claim of the existence of the god in whom you believe?

Everything else is just mental gymnastics, the theist attempting to skirt around the burden of proof.

[Elskidor]

And why I find it pretty pointless. I guess it's a good brain exercise though.

[fr0d0]

The only question any theist need answer, a question the theist cannot seem to satisfactorily answer whatsoever, is Can you provide evidence for your claim of the existence of the god in whom you believe?

Another good example. This question self destructs in your hands. There is no possible logical answer.

[jesus_wept]

I'm not a theist but I can argue for them - the bible (or any holy book of choice) says god exists so god exists, plus warm fuzzy feelings and I need god to love and not be a complete dick.

Did I leave anything out?

---

Also, to make it more realistic I can ignore every point raised, deflect, be passive agressive and call you names.

[downbeatplumb]

The only question any theist need answer, a question the theist cannot seem to satisfactorily answer whatsoever, is Can you provide evidence for your claim of the existence of the god in whom you believe?

Another good example. This question self destructs in your hands. There is no possible logical answer.

So you believe in something for which evidence is impossible.
I believe this is called a self supporting delusion.

What you have admitted to doing is to have removed the need for any kind of proof so you can believe what you want to believe without having to justify it to yourself.

We are not so easily duped.

[fr0d0]

We are not so easily duped.

And there's no making you think

[abaris]

And there's no making you think

Think about what? Based on real world knowledge, I can't possibly reason for something supernatural. For me, believing in god is the same as believing in goblins. Both are in some way possible, since you can't prove a negative, but both are highly unlikely, based on everyday evidence.