[continued]
Some people do not believe in the existence of anything but that of the physical. However, that is irrelevant .. it can't be proved one way or the other by physical means.
And more. There is no reason to believe anything that can't be detected exists.
I think he realizes that there is no point in discussing something, on the level of: "the spaghetti monster and God" are equivalent when it comes to evidence.
Then he loses the debate by default. He would need to make arguments rather than unsupported claims, and he would need to address any counterargument, and specify the comments with which he disagrees and explain his reason for considering them wrong.
That's dialectic, which is how critical thinkers resolve differences of opinion. The process ends with the last plausible, unrebutted argument, which in this case is the one he won't deign to dignify with a response.
To understand what dialectic is and why debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted argument, consider a courtroom trial. A couple of attorneys attempt to falsify one another's argument with counterarguments. In a court of law, that begins with an opening statement by the prosecution and a theory of a crime. If this argument is convincing to a jury and not successfully rebutted, it's time for a verdict: guilty. But perhaps the defense can poke a hole in that theory, maybe by offering an alibi for the defendant. Perhaps there is cell tower ping data suggesting that the defendant wasn't present at the scene of the crime.
If this isn't rebutted, it becomes the last plausible unrebutted argument, and the jury is ready to vote for acquittal. But then, the prosecution produces photos of the suspect near the scene of the crime around the time it was committed, resuscitating the original theory of guilt. And once again, if this cannot be successfully rebutted - if it cannot be shown that the prosecution cannot be right - the debate is over and the jury able to convict. This is dialectic. Any other form of discussion is useless in deciding matters. And if an attorney doesn't even try to rebut his counterpart, his client loses the case.
Presently, he's playing the role of the defense attorney who doesn't try to show why the prosecutor is wrong, but instead, just repeats that his client isn't guilty or refuses to comment at all. Guess how that turns out. It's the same for him here. He forfeits the argument in the eyes of those who respect this process.
This effectively means that people must have no logical reason for their religious belief .. which I know for a fact, is not true.
That depends on whether you mean that your belief is rational or your reason for holding it serves you. It's rational to take comfort where comfort is needed, but the belief in gods is not rational, because it's not derived from valid reasoning.
I won't .. it's a childish game. I will let you think "you've won", if it pleases you.
Then you forfeit.
I still see magical pixies and spaghetti monsters as irrelevant to the topic.
But he (and I) don't. If your preference is to simply handwave the argument away because it offends you, that's fine, but is understood as concession.
anything other than engaging with the OP .. which, of course, cannot be refuted.
The OP is correct. Gods in general cannot be disproved, although her god, the god of Abraham, can and has been (the world was not created in a week and there were no first two humans, so the god said to have done that doesn't exist). But there s no need to disprove them. The claims about them can also be disregarded for lack of supporting evidence.
a jest by atheists, who suggest that God is 'just like' a fictional tale .. while clearly, they are not the same at all. No history .. no Scripture .. just bull****
"Clearly," they are exactly the same in the sense that they are equally unevidenced. Your god has no history, the scripture attributed it appears to be written by people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night, and sorry to say, but all of that is just bull droppings, too.
The Bible is firmly based on the facts of history, not on myth and fiction.
Uh, no.
For starters, we are aware of no facts at all by reading scripture critically. Whatever parts are correct have to be confirmed empirically.
There is nothing irrational in believing that the universe was created and maintained by something greater than ourselves.
Disagree. It's rational to consider the possibility, but there is no sound argument that ends, "therefore God"
There is nothing irrational in believing that the Bible and Qur'an are not based on 'fairy tales'.
Disagree again, for the same reason.
You limit rationality and reality to the physically observable .. and ignore the spiritual and psychological.
Spirituality IS a psychological state that has nothing to do with spirits or any imagined spiritual realm, and mind, like brain, is physical.
To me God can be proven by logic.
That's incorrect. As I told another poster, there is no sound argument concluding, "therefore God"
All we need to do is use black box math and science and we can correlate God, as well as most things in the life sciences. Statistical science is about correlation but not logic and reason, since the black box stays closed. Statistics is not definitive but leaves margin of error and levels certainty.
"The
metaphorical expression word salad (or
word-salad) refers to the practice of stringing together words that have no apparent connection to one another."
