Instigator / Pro
4
1282
rating
58
debates
13.79%
won
Topic

Atheists and agnostics can never as specified convert to theism.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Benjamin
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
7
1507
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 1,263 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Atheists looking for empirical, Practical, Observable, Solid scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods will never ever but never become theists in that manner.

Atheists say their open to the existence of a god or gods by a vehicle of evidence. This means they cannot convert to theism or deism for that matter.

Likewise with agnostics, It's more clear cut with them as they say there isn't enough information or knowledge. They simply say we can't know anything in regards to the existence of a super natural being. So right there in that steadfast stance, There's no budging.

This challenge to refute points made in this topic is also encouraged/offered to the theists to take on.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Round 1
Pro
I like to start this off with a unified understanding and so we can actually communicate with one another and exchange.

Atheists and agnostics can never as specified convert to theism.

So "as specified" it says so something is being specified where ?

As described in the description, it's specified as some like to ignore where it states "Atheists looking for empirical, Practical, Observable, Solid scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods".

The atheists that say they're atheists due to a lack of evidence seen is who we're talking about.

"Likewise with agnostics, It's more clear cut with them as they say there isn't enough information or knowledge. They simply say we can't know anything in regards to the existence of a super natural being. "

The agnostics that say that this is their position are what they are. Regardless of your definition or one you find on the internet, people identify with who they are personally.
If you don't identify as that well I guess the title or position doesn't apply to you.

I only referred to these groups in a plural sense noticeably not in the all encompassing sense.

Now that we're clear on language, let's get to what it takes to be religious or involved in religion.

Last time I checked, science and religion are not the same.

A studious scientist of the evolution theory would have to resign from their career to become what they call a "born again Christian".

A devout Christian devoted to the holy scriptures and sacred writings will profess that faith cometh by hearing by the word of God. That's scriptural but evidence , emipiral data, scientific study is not scriptural. It doesn't come into the equation. It has nothing to do with it and in no way accumulates by hearing religious writings.

Now I believe that's as simple as can be to comprehend. That's really all the topic statement means. I realize people will see a statement like that and run with it not really thinking about it.

Let us not jump the gun but wait to hear the whole story , actually conceptualize what we're seeing and reading.




Con
Yes, a Contender has shown up, the topic statement is indeed false!






























: - )


Just Kidding!   XD


Thank you for telling me what "as specified" means.

"Atheists looking for empirical, Practical, Observable, Solid scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods".
Will never find such a thing. Finding practical, observable, empirical solid scientific evidence for the existence of atoms was hard, finding photons was hard, finding black holes was hard, finding the big bang was hard, etc. Now you are proposing that since there is no empirical evidence of God, we have no reason to believe he exists. With that attitude, we could just stop science altogether, as there would be no point in trying to find something not yet discovered. Yet you are wrong, atheists do not try to find empirical proof of God, neither do theists. God is immaterial and thus by definition undetectable by science. What do you expect to find out in the universe, a star constellation that looks like the sentence "I am God, I exist". Do you expect to find a grumpy old man sitting in the clouds? Your idea that God is a "pseudoscientific" theory is wrong simply because he is not a scientific theory.

Last time I checked, science and religion are not the same.
Thank you for proving my point


The atheists that say they're atheists due to a lack of evidence seen is who we're talking about.
Why would anyone be atheistic if there is no evidence? If there were no evidence, they would be agnostic. I think they just have blind faith in this statement: "If God exists there would necessarily be clear evidence that everyone would accept". Are you claiming that are theists that believe in God because there is no evidence against him? I hope not, cause they simply do not exist. Both theists and atheists are either ignorant or they know at least some arguments from both sides. Thus in order to call yourself an atheist or theist, you must think that the evidence from one side is strong enough to convince you.


A studious scientist of the evolution theory would have to resign from their career to become what they call a "born again Christian".
That is simply not true. Theists mostly fear evolution because atheists constantly claim such a lie, such behaviour is called propaganda.
Here is evidence that a Christian can accept the theory of evolution:



A devout Christian devoted to the holy scriptures and sacred writings will profess that faith cometh by hearing by the word of God. That's scriptural but evidence , emipiral data, scientific study is not scriptural. It doesn't come into the equation. It has nothing to do with it and in no way accumulates by hearing religious writings.
You are doing a logical fallacy: you talk about scriptures, but your example is that hearing creates faith. I could explain how at that time people could not read, but another more important detail exists. Faith was created because they heard the stories from the witnesses, those that saw Jesus crucified and resurrected stood in front of them and proclaimed the word of God. When they got the choice to live or confess it was a lie, they chose to be crucified. Obviously, the people of Roman cities had never been to Jerusalem, but they trusted the men that proclaimed the word of God. Now whether or not the disciples were lying is irrelevant to us, the important thing to remember is that miracles supposedly happened, so people had no reason not to believe in "hearing the word of God". Why exactly would one not trust apostles coming with a combination of these characteristics:
  • Being extremely motivated without any apparent reason
  • Supported by a big new movement growing every day
  • Performing miracles in the public
  • Had charismatic speeches without training or education
  • Were not afraid of persecution
This is how it felt for people at the time that text was written. Today, it would not equivalate to the west, but rather the third world. In places like China and the middle east, there is no freedom of speech, still, Christians preach the gospel and millions of people become Christians. They claim miracles happen there every day.


"Atheists looking for empirical, Practical, Observable, Solid scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods".

If you want to tell me that the miracles supposedly happening there are false and dirty lies, then that is your own opinion. In your worldview miracles cannot happen, but if somewhere miracles supposedly happen, why don't the people you talked about travel there to test the claims. Admit it, "your" atheists have already made a conclusion, they do not by any stretch of the imagination care about testing such a claim a miracle and their silly excuse is that the signature "God" is not written in the skies all day long. Either that or "your" atheists do not exist.

Admit it, most atheists are not trying to be convinced otherwise, just like Christians do not try to become atheists.

Over to you, expert
Round 2
Pro
" Now you are proposing that since there is no empirical evidence of God, we have no reason to believe he exists."

Are you saying I proposed this ?

"Yet you are wrong, atheists do not try to find empirical proof of God, neither do theists. "

Are you speaking for all atheists?

"God is immaterial and thus by definition undetectable by science. "

Yet me as an atheist let's say don't believe in a god due to a lack of evidence. If I can get evidence, my position would change. Do you understand that?
It's either religion or science.

"What do you expect to find out in the universe, a star constellation that looks like the sentence "I am God, I exist". Do you expect to find a grumpy old man sitting in the clouds? Your idea that God is a "pseudoscientific" theory is wrong simply because he is not a scientific theory."

What do I expect? I don't have to expect nothing of this. Simply put, if there is evidence for a god, then I know there is a god like the sun. Negates religion altogether.

"Why would anyone be atheistic if there is no evidence? "

Evidence of what?

You would have to ask an atheist why they are  an atheist. I can reiterate for myself this : Yet me as an atheist let's say don't believe in a god due to a lack of evidence.

"Are you claiming that are theists that believe in God because there is no evidence against him?"

No sir.

"Thus in order to call yourself an atheist or theist, you must think that the evidence from one side is strong enough to convince you."

It's a personal call upon what people call themselves. What they choose to identify as, that's personal.

"That is simply not true. Theists mostly fear evolution because atheists constantly claim such a lie, such behaviour is called propaganda."

I want you to really try to understand what I said. Scientists that have a career in evolution theory wouldn't be Christians. Why? There are Christians, not all, not all, but the ones that believe not in an evolution theory but in the creator God of Adam and Eve.  No evolution just the first man made in the image of his creator, body made from the dust.
I become one of these Christians, I won't believe in the work of studying, researching the data of evolution concepts. That's why I said science and religion are separate things.
If you agree on that and that was your point, then you agree with the topic statement.

You have to understand that people that want it both ways can't have it. That's why I say this is not the way to conversion. You have to drop one for the other.

"Here is evidence that a Christian can accept the theory of evolution:"

Key phrase "a Christian", that's not all or every single one so we're not dealing with partial truths here. A Christian can accept things non biblical. Another Christian can't accept anything but what's permitted in scripture. There's no debating or arguing there.

"You are doing a logical fallacy: you talk about scriptures, but your example is that hearing creates faith. I could explain how at that time people could not read, but another more important detail exists. Faith was created because they heard the stories from the witnesses, those that saw Jesus crucified and resurrected stood in front of them and proclaimed the word of God. When they got the choice to live or confess it was a lie, they chose to be crucified. Obviously, the people of Roman cities had never been to Jerusalem, but they trusted the men that proclaimed the word of God. Now whether or not the disciples were lying is irrelevant to us, the important thing to remember is that miracles supposedly happened, so people had no reason not to believe in "hearing the word of God". "

I'm not going to argue about theology with you. You say I'm in error, then you make a point about people hearing testimony.

I've only mentioned what the bible says in the book of Romans. Everything I've said , is it not true? Isn't so that what I'm saying is true but what your doing is looking at other facets, tunneling your direction at other aspects and saying "Well what about this?", "This is true too!." Nobody is arguing or denying these other situations, but we do have outliers and other kinds of people out here with different positions.

The whole point was about a person having a faith. Faith and evidence/emipiral data are separate things. This really shouldn't be hard to understand.
Many don't accept the existence of a god without proof and won't accept until some is presented. Ok so since that's their position, it will never have anything to do with religion.

A person will either accept there is a god through some sort of faith or if they're open minded, would have it proved to them the existence of God.

If they only want it proved to them, they're not interested in religion. Religion is about accepting, trusting , feeling something is real .
Those scriptures say over and over, "whoever ***believes**** in me or him, not whoever has been proved to. I think the book of John also makes the reference about the doubting Thomas , couldn't have faith but wanted evidence. It's clear the moral of the passage was that the core should be at faith , not evidence.

Those that just want evidence, how would they become religious?

"your" atheists have already made a conclusion, they do not by any stretch of the imagination care about testing such a claim a miracle and their silly excuse is that the signature "God" is not written in the skies all day long. Either that or "your" atheists do not exist."

Regardless of them existing, the statement is still true. You're coming in taking the opposing position that the statement is false.
A person looking for evidence is not looking for religion. Why? It's simple, evidence and faith are two separate things. Is that true or false? I think you said earlier that was your point. Well your point is aligned with the topic statement. You just didn't realize what you were reading when you first read it.

"Admit it, most atheists are not trying to be convinced otherwise, just like Christians do not try to become atheists."

Sure we can say most atheists so that leaves us what? That still leaves us SOME atheists because we're not saying ALL , now isn't that right?
Details, details, details, you have to pay attention to that. So by your statement you've indirectly indicated the outliers or possibly ones that are open minded.

If they're only open minded to evidence for the existence of God, they are not open minded to just simply having a faith in God.

They're only open to one, one, one ,one thing concerning a god as I just stated.

Atheists and agnostics can never convert to theism.

-OR-

Atheists (some , not all, whatever amount) and agnostics (whatever amount) can never convert to theism.

The second version is not necessary but it is a reminder to you that those which are more than one in a group are identified in that category. Not necessarily all that fit that category but more than one.







Con
I do not need to make my argument long this time, there simply is no reason to add new information. I will start with your basic defence in all situations.

Are you saying I proposed this ?
This is an easy way to avoid any critique.


Yes, you did propose that idea:
The atheists that say they're atheists due to a lack of evidence seen is who we're talking about.
 
"Likewise with agnostics, It's more clear cut with them as they say there isn't enough information or knowledge. They simply say we can't know anything in regards to the existence of a super natural being. "
You are only talking about ONE group: those that do not believe in God due to a lack of empirical evidence. This appeal to ignorance is called agnosticism.


What to expect as "evidence":
What do I expect? I don't have to expect nothing of this. Simply put, if there is evidence for a god, then I know there is a god like the sun.
Well, let me tell you what to expect if (the Christian) God created our universe:
  • It would be beautiful
  • It would make sense
  • There would be a variety of living beings
  • There would be a being capable of admiring it and worshipping the creator
  • Many people are evil despite evil not making sense
  • Many people would claim miracles happened and worship (the Christian) God
This all fits reality but is still not empirical "evidence" for Christianity

God by definition cannot be detected, and thus you are searching for something that does not exist. It would be like searching for the tooth fairy.
What you want to see is a Miracle. If somebody came to you and told you that a miracle happened to them, would you believe them?
If you want to see empirical "evidence" of God, then go to a place where they (supposedly) happen.

You are making an appeal to ignorance:
  1. If God wanted me to believe in him, he would make a miracle for me
  2. No clear evidence happens in front of me
  3. Thus I conclude God does not exist
 Also, the assertion that atheists are seeking reasons to believe in God is absurd. If a person "wants" to believe in something, they easily gather the knowledge to prove it for themselves, that is how the flat earth society exists. If you actually wanted to believe in God, you would eventually do exactly that, with or without evidence. The entire plan of both Christianity and Islam is that people must be convinced DESPITE them not wanting to believe. I understand if an emotionally drenched person could be desperate to believe in God because of a tragic event. But still, your argument is clearly ignorant of both human nature, science and religious doctrines, as none of the premises is supported.


Your rejection of my questions
"Are you claiming that are theists that believe in God because there is no evidence against him?"

No sir.
Exactly, no theists believe God exist because of the lack of evidence against him
In the same way, no atheist believes God does not exist because of the lack of evidence

This idea: "We lack evidence/knowledge/understanding/insert-word, and therefore we cannot believe in God" - is clearly only referring to agnostics.
Atheists believe that God does not exist, and have some arguments against him, thus, they believe in "sufficient" evidence to make their conclusion.


The basic flaw of your argument:

It's either religion or science.
Wrong, Newton wrote more about theology than science.

Science studies nature. Religion is a world view.

Religion is a world view, and world views explain these questions:
  • Why does the universe exist (God, gods, the multiverse, the force)?
  • What are humans identity and purpose?
  • What is morality?
  • What happens or happens not after death?
Any world view requires faith, as all of those questions are beyond the authority of science.
If you do not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence of him, you are an agnostic.

If you disbelieve in God but believe in some other thing like morality, you have your own world view. 
But why avoid believing in God without evidence when "morality" is also without empirical evidence?
Because you believe some evidence exists, and since you believe there is evidence, you are not agnostic but atheistic.

What would convince you would not need to be empirical evidence, it could be a philosophical, moral, logical or personal argument.
Ultimately, even agnostics must admit that there are good argument for both sides. Each individual must choose which side is stronger, or why they are equally strong or weak


Round 3
Pro
"Well, let me tell you what to expect if (the Christian) God created our universe:
It would be beautiful
It would make sense
There would be a variety of living beings
There would be a being capable of admiring it and worshipping the creator
Many people are evil despite evil not making sense
Many people would claim miracles happened and worship (the Christian) God
This all fits reality but is still not empirical "evidence" for Christianity"

This is subjective as all get out. Evidence is evidence regardless of how you want it to be. I don't tailor proof as proof just is.

Quite simple as this is not a debate about what kind of proof should there be.

"God by definition cannot be detected, and thus you are searching for something that does not exist."

Do you think God could exist without your definition and contradict what your expectations are?

Do you think God can manifest to our senses if so desired by any means?

This is what I'm saying, we have to be careful with rules and expectations. A concept to consider is about something supreme to over rule natural laws, rationality, science , etc.

These things can be beyond our natural understanding, that's why there is no sense in trying to propose an outlined litmus test.

Something such as this , a deity being real could be proven in a way you never could of imagined. That's another reason why atheists and or agnostics say they're open to the existence of a god. An open mind can allow for a wider presentation of things.

"If you want to see empirical "evidence" of God, then go to a place where they (supposedly) happen."

This is not up for debate as to where and how to get evidence. The debate is, can science and religion mix? It's either empirical data or belief in sacred writings, visions, dreams, etc.

Those that will not accept having a faith in God but will accept evidence for God's existence cannot be religious. Not really controversial because the first statement said those not taking a faith or religion. The keyword or phrase is in the premise.

They have no will to get into religion. So that's what it is as some people are just completely scientific or skeptic. Oh and many of them , you can call agnostic or atheist.

"Also, the assertion that atheists are seeking reasons to believe in God is absurd."

I guess no one should make that assertion. I say that somebody that calls themselves "atheist" only open to an existence of God through proof is obviously not searching for religion. This is obvious, the atheist would tell you that. It seems you're going past that simple validation onto other things unrelated.

"If a person "wants" to believe in something, they easily gather the knowledge to prove it for themselves, that is how the flat earth society exists. "

This is interesting, let me ask, what does a person have to do to get past belief to know something is the case?

What type of evidence is not strong enough to not lift you out of your gut feeling of surety?

"If you actually wanted to believe in God, you would eventually do exactly that, with or without evidence."

I agree that someone that has a belief doesn't have evidence at the moment. That's like a theist and unlike an atheist that's looking for evidence for the positive, they would never become a theist. These are opposite as one will take evidence of the positive and the other doesn't require it although they make have what they call personal testimony, anecdotal.

"Exactly, no theists believe God exist because of the lack of evidence against him
In the same way, no atheist believes God does not exist because of the lack of evidence"

Not up for debate about what atheists believe in.

"Atheists believe that God does not exist, and have some arguments against him, thus, they believe in "sufficient" evidence to make their conclusion."

Not up for debate , not up for debate, we're talking about atheists that require evidence for the existence of God. You're twisting this around, can't keep that goal post where it was. Why not just agree that science and religion don't mix? That's all we're discussing here.

"Wrong, Newton wrote more about theology than science.

Science studies nature. Religion is a world view."

Wait, is science and religion the same or different?

You better not being saying what it appears to be.

I don't see any further points from you that are relevant.

It's not about what arguments people make or  what defines a position or what is good evidence. Look I'm telling you about two different positions.

This makes it very simple.

Is science and religion the same?

If you answer no, that is the reason why the two shall never cross.

The theist (the religion), the atheist /agnostic(the science) cannot intermingle. One has to be dropped for sake of the other.

It's a thing called incompatibility.






Con
Are you saying I proposed this ?
  1. If there are reasons to believe in God, atheists and agnostics CAN convert to theism
  2. You claim atheist and agnostics cannot convert
  3. You claim that there is no evidence for God, and the atheists "as specified" are not impressed with nonemperical evidence
In short, yes. You are claiming that people cannot convert without emperical evidence.


Are you speaking for all atheists?
I am speaking for all humans that understand that "God" cannot be studied using science. You cannot measure his height or his strengt using science. Also, if we did find an insription in the start stating "I am God, I exists", that would not be emperical evidence in the classical, scientific sense.


Yet me as an atheist let's say don't believe in a god due to a lack of evidence. If I can get evidence, my position would change. Do you understand that?
It's either religion or science.
I see. Too bad Newton did not know this, he wrote more about theology than science, you know.
This idea is ridiculous, it is built on this flawed argument:
  1. Religion and science are both about science
  2. Religion and science contradict each other since they are both about the same thing
  3. Its either religion or science

What do I expect? I don't have to expect nothing of this. Simply put, if there is evidence for a god, then I know there is a god like the sun. Negates religion altogether.
Yeah, you claim that you do not need to have any expectations or specific things to look for. That is not science. Science has predictive capabilities, and a scientific theory always has to make predictions about reality that can be tested. Are you claiming to be looking for emperical evidence for God, but you have nothing in particular you are expecting? "I know there is a God like the sun", that is a cool quote, it actually perfectly sums up how many religious people find emperical evidence for God: nature is so beutifull and meaningfull - so God exists. Its a personal argument, but you cannot confuse it with "emperical evidence". What you really want to find, is personal evidence. 

The bible knows this: 
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
Psalms 19. 1-2
This is a song, where David point out how the beuti of nature "reveal knowledge" about its creator.

Now, you would claim science debunks this argument, because otherwise you would have found your "emperical evidence"

Yes, science explains how the world came to be, but with a shocking realisation, the laws of physics, the energy in the universe and any other existing number conserning the universe, are perfect. Change any of the initial conditions in the big bang with less than 0,000000001%, and life as we know it could never exist. This is a valid argument for the existance of God, a scientific argument, but still not  "emperical evidence". What is emperical evidence? It means a prediction of a theory, like general relativety, that is confirmed by experiments.

If you want to perfor an experiment, read the Bible, go to church and seek guidance. If you are such a sceptic, there is nothing dangerous about going doing these things, except if you believe that churches use brainwashing teqniques. Now, since you are a sceptic, you will easilly see right trough the lies. And if you find personal evidence and convert, despite being an atheist and sceptic, there is no chance that other people would regard your conversion as a proof of God.

The evidence of God is not scientific, but the fact that all people, from any background or belief system, convert without scientific evidence, and the changes that happen in their lives. That is your "emperical evidence", the fact that people believe in God, experience miracles, are helped in times of need and convert with only personal evidence.


"Why would anyone be atheistic if there is no evidence? "

Evidence of what?
Evidence about God. If God is not detectable by science, science cannot prove or disprove him. In that case your position would be based not on honest scepticism, but ignorance. 

You should know that God has no "emperical evidence", you should chekc out the real evidence according to the Bible, not science, but people, they are the evidence.


It's a personal call upon what people call themselves. What they choose to identify as, that's personal.
Wow wow wow wow wow wow hey take it easyyyyy, take it easy now. Yes, anybody can be an atheist, I agree. But do not tell me that one can belive "God does not exist" without any reason. That would be like saying: "miracles suposedly happen in my neighbours house, but I do not want to check, I do not believe in miracles"

Do you understand that atheism is based on faith in their claims, just as theism is based on faith in their claims and or own experience.


I want you to really try to understand what I said. Scientists that have a career in evolution theory wouldn't be Christians. Why? There are Christians, not all, not all, but the ones that believe not in an evolution theory but in the creator God of Adam and Eve.  No evolution just the first man made in the image of his creator, body made from the dust.
I become one of these Christians, I won't believe in the work of studying, researching the data of evolution concepts. That's why I said science and religion are separate things.
If you agree on that and that was your point, then you agree with the topic statement.
I understand your argument. But Christians have different views.

Christians no longer believe the sun is moving instead of earth, they believe in bacteria and viruses, they trust science over theology.
But why then do they not believe in the big bang and the theory of evolution? Nothing about that is worse than the things stated above.

The reason is simple: they are constantly told that these theories disprove God. It is wrong, its a circle of ignorance.

  • Evolution disproves God because christians do not believe in it
  • Atheists claim that evolution and creation are contradictory because evolution disproves God
  • Christians do not believe in God because atheists claim that evolution and creation are contradictory
  • cycle repeats
That is the simple reason. Many Christians accept the theory, and many atheists also attack it scientificly.

The theory will be taken down by science, if ever, not religion.

So your argument that scientists cannot believe in God is incorrect, they definately can.


Key phrase "a Christian", that's not all or every single one so we're not dealing with partial truths here. A Christian can accept things non biblical. Another Christian can't accept anything but what's permitted in scripture. There's no debating or arguing there.
The Bible never claims to be scientifical, Paul claims:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Yes, the Bible indeed is "that", even atheists use the teachings of Jesus to live their lives.
I totally understand why atheists like you might be angry about christians defying common sense,
but they are defying common sense, which the bible encourages people to use.

The bible never contradicts science, because it is not about science, its about history, religion and philosophy.

I do not believe that the Bible is a word by word copy of a scientific report from when God created the universe.

You need not surpass my level of faith in order to be a Christian, you can believe in science first and then religion, or the oposite, you choose, not the other christians.


This is subjective as all get out. Evidence is evidence regardless of how you want it to be. I don't tailor proof as proof just is.
Excactly. There IS evidence for God, but you CHOOSE not to believe or check it.

Do you think God could exist without your definition and contradict what your expectations are?
Do you think God can manifest to our senses if so desired by any means?
The first sentence carry no meaning as far as I am concerned.
The second sentence has a simple answer: YES, of course he can, he created the laws of physics, energy and space time, of cource he can appear to your senses, that is what happened in the bible (suposedly), and is what happens today to many christians (suposedly). You could find one of these people and talk with them if you wanted to.


This is what I'm saying, we have to be careful with rules and expectations. A concept to consider is about something supreme to over rule natural laws, rationality, science , etc.

These things can be beyond our natural understanding, that's why there is no sense in trying to propose an outlined litmus test.
Of course, God is beyond our understanding. We have not "created" God by using our logic, he reveals himself to us both today and throughout history. Tell me, if God talked to you, would you tell him: "sorry, I do not understand you, so I will not believe in you". No you would not, because you dont need to understand him, you SAW him.

It's either empirical data or belief in sacred writings, visions, dreams, etc.
No its not. The laws of science tells us how we can predict events. HOW? The laws of physics describe events that MUST happen. If God wanted to do a miracle, he does not break the laws of physics, he just makes an additional event happen, and during that event, the laws of physics were still active. The laws of physics are not defined as "nothing else that what we describe can happen", they describe "we know that certain events must happen". That is a difference.

Your argument is based about the false assumption that the laws of physics IS GOD, that is a claim of faith. Theism is the faith that GOD is more than the laws of physics, he created the universe, and "in him we all live, move and exist". God moves the earth, God creates life, God makes it rain. Gods actions are predictable because he follows the laws of physics which he wrote, but is also able to heal the sick, convince atheists to convert and otherwise non-scientifical actions, like miracles. They are miracles BECAUSE they are unpredictable. You cannot blame miracles for being unpredictable when that is their definition.


Those that will not accept having a faith in God but will accept evidence for God's existence cannot be religious.
Intelectual theists must not be religious, correct. However that does not mean one believe in a religion and understand why most people need "religious activities", that is something an all powerfull God would understand as weel. Intelectual theists can also more easilly make intelligent theology, rather than emotional ones.


They have no will to get into religion. So that's what it is as some people are just completely scientific or skeptic. Oh and many of them , you can call agnostic or atheist.
If someone is an intelectual theist, they are in the same position as an atheist with regards to their lifestyle and philosophy. They are easier to convert than atheists, but share the same secular lifestyle. That does not mean that intelectual theists cannot be religious, just the same way intelectual people can still be hyped about traditions, literature, films and music. Although these people understand the world more in a scientific way, they can still understand WHY some religious people trust their bibles more than their teachers. In short, smart people can also put their trust in God, but they cannot have the same religious view on reality, they know why their religion claims what it claims.

I am a christian, has been very religious and conservative. But now I am an intelectual theist, I still trust God, Jesus, miracles and the Bible, but I am less religious and more scientifical, this shapes my theology.


 I say that somebody that calls themselves "atheist" only open to an existence of God through proof is obviously not searching for religion.
I understand.

But there cannot be emperical evidence for God, since he is imaterial. That was my point, atheist make it impossible for them to believe in God, using science as a shield. 
That is why I believe that theism is a more intelectual standpoint, they can become religious, or atheistic, while atheist has already chosen their position, unable to change it.


This is interesting, let me ask, what does a person have to do to get past belief to know something is the case?

What type of evidence is not strong enough to not lift you out of your gut feeling of surety?
Read literally any Christian book written by a former atheist.

Why does not atheist know about the reasons to believe in God? That is ridiculous.
Atheist literally believe that God does not exists because of the absence of evidence. And then they do not even know why other people are theists.
The absence of evidence does not exist the real world, but in their own small bubles, defended by "science".
Atheists believe that science and religion contradicts each other, but ignore the fact that theist believe in science in nearly all cases, and that its subjective, not biblical, to not believe in evolution or the big bang.

I am not attacking anyone personally here, but from what you are saying, I think we can agree that the group of people you talk about, are ignorant of the rest of reality.


Not up for debate , not up for debate, we're talking about atheists that require evidence for the existence of God.
All people require evidence for the existance of God. The evidence atheist require does not exist, even if the bible was correct science could not find evidence for God.

Wait, is science and religion the same or different?
Both science and religion are based on information our mind gathers. Science is about the physical world and is mostly objective and agreed upon. Religion (and philosophy) is not about the physical world, but the place of humans.

We know that a mind exists, its an axiom, if we did not exist, we could not discuss our existance.

If an atheist believe that "the mind" exists, they have a semi-religious faith already.

Science and religion are not the same, but they are both based on the same mind, that religion, not science, explains.
Give me a scientific reason why the mind and religion exists, and I will give you a religious reason why the mind and science exists.


If you answer no, that is the reason why the two shall never cross.
I agree.
Science should not be based on religion, and religion not on science.

However religion is more necesary than science.

Without religion, there is no mind, which destroys the foundation of both religion, science and philosophy.

Thus, the existence of a creator is more basic than the existance of atoms.

If, and only if, the creator exists, will the mind exists, and with the mind comes morality, science and philosophy.



Round 4
Pro
"If there are reasons to believe in God, atheists and agnostics CAN convert to theism"

If an atheist/agnostic doesn't want to believe but want to have proof , they can't convert.

You're moving the goalpost or afraid to make the distinction because your cornered. Take your choice.

"You claim atheist and agnostics cannot convert"

I claim what type of atheist and agnostic?

You're ignoring specification.

"You claim that there is no evidence for God, and the atheists "as specified" are not impressed with nonemperical evidence"


Where are you getting this from ?

Where did I make this statement?

"In short, yes. You are claiming that people cannot convert without emperical evidence."

Sure, just not ALL people.

"I am speaking for all humans that understand that "God" cannot be studied using science. You cannot measure his height or his strengt using science. Also, if we did find an insription in the start stating "I am God, I exists", that would not be emperical evidence in the classical, scientific sense."

You're preaching to the choir.

"This idea is ridiculous, it is built on this flawed argument:
Religion and science are both about science"

Wait a minute, how is religion about science?

Do they both have the same definition?

"Yeah, you claim that you do not need to have any expectations or specific things to look for."

I don't claim it , I'm telling you I don't. Are you calling me a liar?

"That is not science. Science has predictive capabilities, and a scientific theory always has to make predictions about reality that can be tested. Are you claiming to be looking for emperical evidence for God, but you have nothing in particular you are expecting? "I know there is a God like the sun", that is a cool quote, it actually perfectly sums up how many religious people find emperical evidence for God: nature is so beutifull and meaningfull - so God exists. Its a personal argument, but you cannot confuse it with "emperical evidence". What you really want to find, is personal evidence. "

You know this is a red herring. Making all these statements, twisting up things.

Now it appears you're twisting science with religion.

Do you actually believe religion is science?


"Now, you would claim science debunks this argument, because otherwise you would have found your "emperical evidence" "

Why is this directed at me and what proof is to me?

"The evidence of God is not scientific, but the fact that all people, from any background or belief system, convert without scientific evidence, and the changes that happen in their lives. That is your "emperical evidence", the fact that people believe in God, experience miracles, are helped in times of need and convert with only personal evidence."

I'm getting lost in what point you're trying to make. A lot of these responses appear like preaching.

You say God is not scientific but God is of religion. So therefore science and religion are not one. People convert without evidence . That's exactly right because it's about faith which is different from evidence. Duh, duh, duh, come on , this is straightforward.

The "personal evidence" thing I already mentioned when I spoke about personal anecdotal testimony. The thing about evidence or the truth, it doesn't change from person to person but opinion does. Liquid water is always wet. That's a true statement. It may not always be a good taste . Each person may drink more or less of it than the other or flavor it oppose to another that doesn't. That's personal taste.

"Evidence about God. If God is not detectable by science, science cannot prove or disprove him. In that case your position would be based not on honest scepticism, but ignorance. "

You can ask a Christian, why do they believe in God? If it didn't take facts that are proven right before your eyes and theirs, what was it?

It's all according to their basis, their experience. That's what I said before. It's a personal journey.

"You should know that God has no "emperical evidence", you should chekc out the real evidence according to the Bible, not science, but people, they are the evidence."

So what? It's true that those seeking empirical data to accept the existence of God cannot be religious. Why? It's not the criteria for being religious. Do you agree?

It's like you can't get into a college by looking good and talking proper or fancy. That's not the criteria even when people's ways are to impress the dean or somebody.

"Wow wow wow wow wow wow hey take it easyyyyy, take it easy now. Yes, anybody can be an atheist, I agree. But do not tell me that one can belive "God does not exist" without any reason. That would be like saying: "miracles suposedly happen in my neighbours house, but I do not want to check, I do not believe in miracles" "

The point is, regardless, regardless of the reason, that's dictated by an individual. I can't argue with them on that. It's a personal journey, do you follow?

"Do you understand that atheism is based on faith in their claims, just as theism is based on faith in their claims and or own experience."

Sure but watch this, what I'm saying is any person that is only , only interested in science to accept a god as being real is not taking the faith approach. I understand they have a faith in the negative. But they will not take a faith in the positive. That's the kind of person I'm speaking of. It's all about the tests and confirmations. A faith filled person is not looking for all that.

"I understand your argument. But Christians have different views."

Amen.

"Christians no longer believe the sun is moving instead of earth, they believe in bacteria and viruses, they trust science over theology."

The ones that don't trust science over the bible, guess what, the scientific mindsets of atheists(remember not all) but those ones won't convert to the Christians distrusting
science. The bible says "rightly dividing the word of truth".You have to divide the people we're talking about.

Points I already made, you repeat it back like you made it initially. That's why there's nothing but an "amen " to it. You're just spitting it back at me. It's like when it's to your benefit , you'll point out the distinction. When it is not, you'll go general.

You make a point : "Here is evidence that a Christian can accept the theory of evolution:"

Pointing this out like another Christian can't accept it. Then you say Christians have different views. No kidding, so you can say Christian has this and that while I'll say one has another. It's a moot point.

The context of this debate has clearly divided theism. It's those that are not about science at all to worship, accept, honor, pray, whatever to a god they believe in.

"So your argument that scientists cannot believe in God is incorrect, they definately can."

I never made that statement or argument. You misunderstood a point I made about those following a career path in evolution.

A devout Christian devoted to scriptural writings will have to resign their career in evolution. The scriptures are about creation, are they not? That was the context around that point I made in round 1.

"The Bible never claims to be scientifical, Paul claims:"

Amen brother. So you agree scientific folks can't convert to non-scientific folks in this question of an existing god. They're two different roads to take upon learning the answer to the question.

"I totally understand why atheists like you might be angry about christians defying common sense,
but they are defying common sense, which the bible encourages people to use."

Here's a great example to show how you're not comprehending a lot of what I'm saying. Maybe just nitpicking.

I never said I was an atheist. I've said "yet me as an atheist let's say....". Better yet I'll flip it so you don't miss it this time. Yet let's say me as an atheist don't believe in a god because there's no evidence. The statement was supposing with the "let's say".

"The bible never contradicts science, because it is not about science, its about history, religion and philosophy."

Amen so the atheists and agnostics about science won't have anything to do with it. That's exactly right.

"You need not surpass my level of faith in order to be a Christian, you can believe in science first and then religion, or the oposite, you choose, not the other christians."

Whatever religion that is, there's nothing to do with it in anything here.

"Excactly. There IS evidence for God, but you CHOOSE not to believe or check it."

Am I arguing there is or isn't any ?

Sir you're not sticking with this topic. This is not about proving God's existence nor is it a proselytization stage.

"The second sentence has a simple answer: YES, of course he can, he created the laws of physics, energy and space time, of cource he can appear to your senses, that is what happened in the bible (suposedly), and is what happens today to many christians (suposedly). You could find one of these people and talk with them if you wanted to."

Both answers are yes if you trust what  almighty God is. Apparently a supreme entity with no limits.

"Do you think God could exist without your definition and contradict what your expectations are?
Do you think God can manifest to our senses if so desired by any means?"

Both questions are asking about determining the limitations. The answer is logically yes to both if you also agree that there are no limitations.

"Your argument is based about the false assumption that the laws of physics IS GOD, that is a claim of faith. "

Get this straight once and for all. My position is the fact that those people called atheist and agnostic that will only agree to a god being real not by the vehicle of religion but by science or evidence are not converting to theism. Why would they? Those that declare they're not, are not agreeing to do so.

I'm literally saying that people that are not converting to religion are not converting to it.

What in the world is so complicated about that ?

"Intelectual theists must not be religious, correct."

What are "intelectual theists"?

I understand a theist to be one religious or with a faith in a god.

"But there cannot be emperical evidence for God, since he is imaterial. That was my point"

It's not a point to make in this topic. It's not about what can or can't be as I say empirical.

"while atheist has already chosen their position, unable to change it."

You agree with the topic statement. Unless there is no longer a search for observable, repeatable, testable scientific methods, these folks cannot convert. Not all, but those as specified.

"I am not attacking anyone personally here, but from what you are saying, I think we can agree that the group of people you talk about, are ignorant of the rest of reality."

I haven't made such statement to agree with but we do agree that folks taking the scientific road to get an answer are not taking the religious road.

"All people require evidence for the existance of God."

You have to prove that. This contradicts why religions exists if that's the case. Also you have to show you know everyone's individual case on why they believe in what they believe. Since you said "all people", that would include babies. How do babies require evidence without being taught what it is first ?

"The evidence atheist require does not exist, even if the bible was correct science could not find evidence for God."

Then they won't convert to theism as they operate through the evidence or scientific method.

"Both science and religion are based on information our mind gathers. Science is about the physical world and is mostly objective and agreed upon. Religion (and philosophy) is not about the physical world, but the place of humans."

Is science and religion the same or different?

Your answer will have to be that is the same or different. Nice and simple with focus.

"Science and religion are not the same"

Thank you.
I've made my point. I've said enough going in circles already.

"I agree.
Science should not be based on religion, and religion not on science."

Right on . No other point necessary.

So a lot things were said further that seem to be about the validity of religion when this debate wasn't challenging that.

Some of my questions weren't answered.

But I did enjoy the debate. Hopefully we both got something out of it.

Bottom line is that science and religion don't mix. Those that only want to be involved in one that acknowledges an existence of a god, when the basis for it is only science and not religion, then it's just the science. They won't be a part of a faith.















Con
I have won this debate.


His atheists "as specified" do not exist. He claims that they want evidence, but does not specify what kind of evidence they want.

They want empirical evidence, that is ridiculous and illogical. In fact, if a person wanted to be a Christian he would be convinced even by terrible evidence.

At last, even if his atheists "as specified" did exist, they would never find anything they would not explain away and not call evidence.



His argument was that: atheists, as specified, cannot convert.
This is wrong, many such atheists convert all the time, and many Christians convert all the time.


Vote Con - because facts don't care about your feelings.