Why should I debate about God with you ?

[McBell]

Means not very much serious about ?

I do not understand the above quoted post as it is written.

 

[chinu]

Because in debates with myself, there is no clear winner.

Debates with thyself ?
But you said; Debates require at least two participants.

 

[chinu]

I do not understand the above quoted post as it is written.

Rephrase;
Means not very much serious about God ?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Debates with thyself ?
But you said; Debates require at least two participants.

Yes, to have a clear winner or loser, they do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wait and watch the thread

Been there / done that ...

... then took a nap.​

 

[chinu]

Because going around and around in circles bores me

Does NOT going around and around in circles kills your boredom ?

 

[ChristineM]

Does NOT going around and around in circles kills your boredom ?

Every god/gods debate i have been involved with has gone round and round and got nowhere, I've wound up graciously withdrawing from boredom which has generally been followed with the opposition whooping with delight that they have won. .

i am speaking from personal experience.

 

[chinu]

I don't know. Does God keep score about who wins and loses these debates?

God need not to keep score.
If a believer wins the debate -- then God is on believer's side.
If a non-believer wins the debate -- then God is on non-believer's side

 

[McBell]

Rephrase;
Means not very much serious about God ?

Me?
Not really.


Though I do love to watch threads that are basically two persons of the same religion arguing over which one is the more righter of the two.
They get really interesting when there are three or more of them arguing over which one is the most rightest.

 

[PureX]

Provided the dialog does not boil down to people talking past, over, around. etc. one another, it is quite possible for one or more of the participants (and quite possibly some of the lurkers) to walk away with a better understanding.

One does not have to agree with a "competing" idea to understand the competing idea or how said idea was gotten to.

Not only that, the truth of things will usually appear to us to be paradoxical. So by seeking out and understanding the apparent opposing concepts of truth, we might actually be able to glimpse the whole of it more clearly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Really, is there a room to convert ?

Provide enough evidence and I might consider doing so, but only as to God being a possibility, and no room required.

 

[PureX]

Provide enough evidence and I might consider doing so, but only as to God being a possibility, and no room required.

God is already a possibility. All you have to do is choose to trust in that possibility. Or choose not to. And see what happens. There is no right or wrong. Just possibilities, choices, and results.

 

[Altfish]

What made you think so ?

Think what?
Debate?
That's the point of forums, isn't it?

 

[shunyadragon]

No need to debate anything about gods with me.

There are no legitimate reasons to debate the existence of Gods. The opposing and variable beliefs involved are subjective without resolution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why should I debate about God with you ?

Because you want to?

 

[shunyadragon]

Provide enough evidence and I might consider doing so, but only as to God being a possibility, and no room required.

I do not believe the consideration of Gods being a possibility is an adequate basis for a debate.

 

[siti]

God need not to keep score.
If a believer wins the debate -- then God is on believer's side.
If a non-believer wins the debate -- then God is on non-believer's side

Oh...I've met people like that before...switch sides when they see that the other team is winning...

But ... (he said, thinking deeply and pausing slightly for effect) ... how does God know who won if she isn't keeping score?

 

[Nakosis]

Why should I debate about God with you ?

Because we both might learn something.

 

[osgart]

The thing about truth is that among humans it can be very unpopular and dismissed very easily using some academic law or rule.

Winning a debate does not mean that you have indisputable truth. Losing a debate does not make you wrong.

Refutation is perception and convincement without necessarily being truth among humans.

When the whole of a matter is available then logic and evidence take effect and facts are discovered. Science is limited to the scope of observable, physical evidence. If there is more to reality than the physical then science will not help anyone achieve its discovery.

If philosophy is a valid way to discover truth and gain knowledge among humans there will never be a way to falsify it. As a result on the issues of the existence of God, and eternal life the best anyone can do is have beliefs and intuitions about that.

Having said all that, I'm atheist with regards to all Gods that are omniscient, all knowing, all powerful, and/or benevolent. Why? Because all those gods are invisible, silent, hidden, and undetectable.

I don't see the point of debating the existence of God unless both sides are willing to be open to a change of conviction and belief.

Theists feel they have indisputable truth so debate is probably good for them if the opposition can provide beneficial information in a demonstrable fashion.

Debate without a qualifying discussion is most likely useless.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why should I debate about God with you ?

Any of the same reasons we'd debate about anything else; Convincing people for or against resultant socio-political behaviour; As practice to develop skills and experience, either directly for future debates or for more general intellectual and social benefits; General entertainment and amusement.

Of course, "debate about" doesn't really say anything, you'd need a specific topic or proposal (depending on the form of debate) to address.