I will debate any theist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:08 PM)natachan Wrote:  And if the other can't give any rational reason to believe that the metaphysical exist or even explain what it is? Is it still unfair to expect this?

Are you asking me?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
Do you think it's reasonable for a person to ask for a rational reason to believe in the existence of the metaphysical and to ask for an exact definition of what that metaphysical means?

You say that comparing the existence of something physical by showing physical and the existence of the metaphysical using the physical is unfair. And that's fine, if we were talking about proving the existence of a musical tone (the emotional effect it has) by talking simply about physical phenomena I would agree. But many theists won't define what they mean by metaphysical when they talk about god or give any rational reason for believing that this construct exists at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 11:25 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This debate is mostly impossible as the subject matter is incompatible. Faith based claims cannot combat something that requires hard empirical evidence and hard empirical evidence cannot combat faith based claims.

While I agree with your analysis of the unfairness of those ground rules, I really have to disagree with the highlighted part of the above statement.

That is precisely what evidence does. Unevidenced beliefs can be demonstrated to be false by evidence that contradicts them.
You may be thinking only of faith claims for which no counter-evidence has been found.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:17 PM)natachan Wrote:  Do you think it's reasonable for a person to ask for a rational reason to believe in the existence of the metaphysical and to ask for an exact definition of what that metaphysical means?

Oh absolutely it's reasonable. Necessary even. "Just cuz" is never acceptable in any realm of discussion, IMO anyway.

But, there also has to be the acceptance that the answer will most assuredly not be empirical evidence. It will be something along the lines as a personal anecdote... or a sudden change... or personal evidence that is "evidence" enough to form or shape beliefs which are faith-based or metaphysical.

Quote:You say that comparing the existence of something physical by showing physical and the existence of the metaphysical using the physical is unfair. And that's fine, if we were talking about proving the existence of a musical tone (the emotional effect it has) by talking simply about physical phenomena I would agree. But many theists won't define what they mean by metaphysical when they talk about god or give any rational reason for believing that this construct exists at all.

And this is true... and frustrating... especially if there is a "just cuz" answer. As I stated above, it's okay to make a demand for "proof"* for the metaphysical as long as it's realized and accepted that the "proof"* will be something that can't be proved empirically or tested and retested because of the nature of that "proof"*.


*I quoted proof because scientifically speaking, that's not proof. It's only relative proof according to that person and what he accepts as personal evidence to shape his faith-based claim.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 11:25 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This debate is mostly impossible as the subject matter is incompatible. Faith based claims cannot combat something that requires hard empirical evidence and hard empirical evidence cannot combat faith based claims.

While I agree with your analysis of the unfairness of those ground rules, I really have to disagree with the highlighted part of the above statement.

That is precisely what evidence does. Unevidenced beliefs can be demonstrated to be false by evidence that contradicts them.
You may be thinking only of faith claims for which no counter-evidence has been found.

Nope.

Because faith-based claims can answer every counter with "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". And, if you give complete credence to all faith based claims, all empirical evidence becomes null and void because of the "magic" aspect.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:47 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  While I agree with your analysis of the unfairness of those ground rules, I really have to disagree with the highlighted part of the above statement.

That is precisely what evidence does. Unevidenced beliefs can be demonstrated to be false by evidence that contradicts them.
You may be thinking only of faith claims for which no counter-evidence has been found.

Nope.

Because faith-based claims can answer every counter with "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". And, if you give complete credence to all faith based claims, all empirical evidence becomes null and void because of the "magic" aspect.

Oh, sorry - I thought we were talking about rational debate. Never mind. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  While I agree with your analysis of the unfairness of those ground rules, I really have to disagree with the highlighted part of the above statement.

That is precisely what evidence does. Unevidenced beliefs can be demonstrated to be false by evidence that contradicts them.
You may be thinking only of faith claims for which no counter-evidence has been found.

Nope.

Because faith-based claims can answer every counter with "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". And, if you give complete credence to all faith based claims, all empirical evidence becomes null and void because of the "magic" aspect.

Wait.

There are two types of faith-based claims we see here all the time. The first falls under the unfasifiable heading, the second under the falsifiable heading.

My God exists = unfalsifiable

The Earth is 6,000 years old = falsifiable

In the second group the “goddidit” and “God works in mysterious ways” can be empirically countered and therefore the faith-based argument falls apart and is shown to be a ridiculous position to hold.

It is the ones under the unfalsifiable heading that are completely faith-based and become theological arguments.

That’s how I see it.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
25-02-2015, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2015 02:57 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 02:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Nope.

Because faith-based claims can answer every counter with "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". And, if you give complete credence to all faith based claims, all empirical evidence becomes null and void because of the "magic" aspect.

Oh, sorry - I thought we were talking about rational debate. Never mind. Drinking Beverage

That's what I'm saying. Any faith based claim, strictly speaking, isn't rational because it cannot be proved empirically and tested or retested.

An actual fair debate on the two camps is almost impossible.

Edit: and what HoC said. All anecdotal evidences become discredited.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  I thought we were talking about rational debate.

Lies!!!

The god concept arises when emotion becomes entangled with experience. There is precious little middle ground whilst one side discredits anecdotal evidence.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-02-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 02:50 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 02:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Nope.

Because faith-based claims can answer every counter with "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". And, if you give complete credence to all faith based claims, all empirical evidence becomes null and void because of the "magic" aspect.

Wait.

There are two types of faith-based claims we see here all the time. The first falls under the unfasifiable heading, the second under the falsifiable heading.

My God exists = unfalsifiable

The Earth is 6,000 years old = falsifiable

In the second group the “goddidit” and “God works in mysterious ways” can be empirically countered and therefore the faith-based argument falls apart and is shown to be a ridiculous position to hold.

It is the ones under the unfalsifiable heading that are completely faith-based and become theological arguments.

That’s how I see it.

Sorry. Even the most concrete empirical evidence can be countered with a "magic" response.

As seen in the "Satan put the dinosaur bones in the earth to create doubt" argument.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: