Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Willamena]

But if people are going to have any kind of meaningful discussion, evidence for different points of view needs to be provided. And the evidence to support a point of view should be provided by the person who claimed that point of view was accurate.

Yes. Now we have good reason for asking them to support their position.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most myths do provide meaning, this is their purpose. Just because one can see all religious scripture are likely to be myth doesn't mean you automatically jump to a materialist philosophy. Quantum physics undermines materialism in some way. Doesn't make wildly fictitious Bronze Age stories real.

I see a rambling post accusing all religious text adherents in the world, but I do not see any rational ideas here about what I was discussing--that an eternal and/or oscillating universe goes against known laws of thermodynamics, entropy, conservation--and logic.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. Now we have good reason for asking them to support their position.

So the situation hasn't changed, but you are now agreeing with me. You recognise that the person making the claim is the one to whom it falls to produce evidence to support that claim.

 

[joelr]

I see a rambling post accusing all religious text adherents in the world,

I'm sure you see lot's of things. Nothing you present here points to any "rambling" considering my statements are in direct response to your words. Nothing points to accusations either?

but I do not see any rational ideas here about what I was discussing--that an eternal and/or oscillating universe goes against known laws of thermodynamics, entropy, conservation--and logic.

You put forth that religion gives meaning under the pretense of it also being true.
I mentioned that while it may give meaning it has nothing to do with what is true.

You lumped non-believers in religion in a materialist group.
I pointed out that not believing in a myth doesn't mean one thinks only the physical world is only what exists or is a 100% materialist.
In fact quantum physics demonstrates that materialism has limits.

Trying to rescue a myth with no good evidence by invoking known constants of nature isn't really worth commenting on? Do we know if there is a multiverse, different universes with different constants or even a creator that simply does not interact with whatever consciousness forms in each universe? No.
Can every religion and cult use this as evidence their God or Gods were the creators? Yes. If this was even a little bit true can we get a creation story that matches creation instead of matching older mythic creation stories?

 

[Willamena]

So the situation hasn't changed, but you are now agreeing with me. You recognise that the person making the claim is the one to whom it falls to produce evidence to support that claim.

No, I recognize that, because we have a reason for debate, the person making the initial claim gets dibs.

Then it’s your turn.

The need for “meaningful discussion” on a topic implies varying positions for which each side provides their evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I recognize that, because we have a reason for debate, the person making the initial claim gets dibs.

Dibs on what?

Then it’s your turn.

The need for “meaningful discussion” on a topic implies varying positions for which each side provides their evidence.

Of course, it hasn't got to my turn yet. I'm still waiting for the guy who claimed God exists to back his claim up.

I'm more than happy to provide my reasons for why I don't think God exists, but we're not talking about my position yet, we're talking about the believer's position that God is out there.

 

[Willamena]

Dibs on what?

On the previledge of providing support for their claim to another.

Of course, it hasn't got to my turn yet. I'm still waiting for the guy who claimed God exists to back his claim up.

I'm more than happy to provide my reasons for why I don't think God exists, but we're not talking about my position yet, we're talking about the believer's position that God is out there.

Then there's no debate yet.

 

[Tiberius]

On the previledge of providing support for their claim to another.

Why do you call it a privilege? If a person makes some out-of-this-world claim, they have a responsibility to support that claim before they can expect me to believe it. You're making it sound like it's a reward.

Then there's no debate yet.

But we're not talking debate. We're talking "meaningful discussion." If nobody supports their position, then all we have is an endless back and forth of, "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!"

And that's not meaningful at all.

 

[Willamena]

Why do you call it a privilege? If a person makes some out-of-this-world claim, they have a responsibility to support that claim before they can expect me to believe it. You're making it sound like it's a reward.

I call it a privilege because you, earlier, claimed a right. Neither is actually the case, though each may be ostensibly true. Power to rhetoric.

By the way, the burden doesn’t require an extraordinary claim. Every truth claim has the burden.

But we're not talking debate. We're talking "meaningful discussion." If nobody supports their position, then all we have is an endless back and forth of, "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!"

And that's not meaningful at all.

If no one supports their position, all you have is Twitter. Hopefully we’re better than that. Hopefully, when we say, “Hey! Support your claim,” it’s with an intent.

 

[Tiberius]

I call it a privilege because you, earlier, claimed a right.

Are you taking the opposite position to me just because you can, then?

By the way, the burden doesn’t require an extraordinary claim.

Who said it did?

Every truth claim has the burden.

Which is exactly what I said in post 293 and exactly what you disagreed with in post 294.

Now you are agreeing with me. If a person makes a claim, the burden of supporting that claim is on them.

 

[Willamena]

Are you taking the opposite position to me just because you can, then?

No, a similar position.

Who said it did?

Your post described extraordinary claims.

Which is exactly what I said in post 293 and exactly what you disagreed with in post 294.

Now you are agreeing with me. If a person makes a claim, the burden of supporting that claim is on them.

If a person makes a truth claim, the burden rests on their claim. I think we agree on that, but there are many caveats and conditions you keep applying to that that knock me for a loop.

Post 293 showed nothing more than that statements resembling anecdotal evidence aren't necessary evidence when it's just made up to prove a point. That doesn't detract from what I'd said, though.