Mr. M has allowed me to choose the topic of the debate, between us.

The topic I've chosen is Personal Reasoning.

Obviously, this is between mine vs his.

But, he'll represent the reasons why some theists reason that their position is more logical that the default position of never having adopted such a folklore as a philosophy, and basis for understanding of the origins, and devolopment of the nature of the physical universe, and biological life that has occurred in it.

I, as an atheist, will obviously represent the reasons why I think being skeptical of anything based on any theist claims, or supernatural claims, of either the agents of theism, or any stories that come from theism.

I'd like to start by asking Mr.M, how he came to his current theist philosophy.

Human logic is based on intuition.

It's no better than a coin toss, no matter what 'method' of 'logic' one uses, when speculating on an 'unknown'.

I could 'logically' conclude the same thing, or something else.

Logic always boils down to personal opinions.

Opinions and reality, are not mutually inclusive.

I have the proper understanding that 'logic' is not a very practical method at making reliable predictions.

Which is why I don't deviate from the default position of being skeptical of any a priori.

So, it's a crapshoot, to not be skeptical.

And 'believing' an a priori assumption, is an emotional impetus to suspend 'disbelief' (skepticism). What many refer to as being 'foolish', or 'foolhardy'.

Believing is not impartial, nor is it pragmatism.

Skepticism is a default position, that is fundamentally tied to our base instinct to survive, which is a reflex.

No, of course not.

I was disambiguating the term 'logic'.

Just saying 'logic' is ambiguous. I don't debate in ambiguous terms, because it's silly to do so.

I was simply making 100% clear, that 'logic' is what we refer to as a method that human's have devised, in order for humans to conjecture and speculate on something they have no firm evidence for.

As such, 'logic', of something that there is no form evidence for, is no better than a coin toss.

Exactly.

Intuition is a method that humans use to speculate, or contemplate.

I could conclude that the whole concept of gods are merely an ancient folkore, and completely incompatible with reality.

At bare minimum, my odds of being mistaken/correct on that theory, are 50/50.

And I can dream up any number of theories, and they can all have the same 50/50 odds.

If you are describing a past event, then it's personal opinion based on observation.

If you are making a prediction a future event, then it's personal prediction/opinion, based on human intuition.

That's the distinction between the two.

Those are still a subset of 'Logic'.

And 'Logic' is based on human thought.

I just call it 'speculations', when you're conjecturing or contemplating on a priori's.

The 'conclusion' (Q) could be a 'false positive' based on human error.

It happens all the time...

False.

It's a ubiquitous 'catch all' term.

There are many 'types' of methodology that fall under the category of 'logic'

The term 'logic' is a colloquial 'catch all' term, among average people.

Ask a person off the street what 'Boolean Logic' is, or how it differs from, or how closely it resembles 'fuzzy logic', and many wouldn't even know that 'logic' had subsets.

If you say so.

BTW, 'proper' is a subjective term; not 'objective.

I forget all the different ones I've heard about, but the ones I know of are Predicate Logic, Boolean Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Mathematical Logic, 1st order logic. That kind of thing.

I'm not a 'trained' logician, or whatever. I'm an engineer.

Apparently, the formulas you use are a 'Modal Logic'?

I'd never really heard the term before just recently, but, it looks like an algebraic shorthand for axioms. Which I think is a totally cool way to break down a problem.

I was under the impression that the formalized origins of 'logic' were historically thought to be a Greek discipline invented by either Plato, or Aristotle.

No?

In any event, I don't know why historians would even try and attribute that 'logic' was 'invented'. Intuition and structured reasoning and problem solving obviously has been around much longer than that.

I did?

Did I, really?

Please quote where I said 'We have no evidence for logic'. 

Because that's a nonsensical statement.

No.

The axioms of logic have no music, either.

That's a category error.

Logic are ideas in the human mind. A thing.

Evidence is a thing.

Music is a thing.

Put simply, one saying they use 'Logic' (no matter the variety) boils down to one person indicating they use human interpretations of 'things', or 'ideas'.

Logic (as we speak of it) is a 'human' construct, of the human mind.

I think it's entirely correct to say that it's a human method to extrapolate.

I never said anything of the sort. That's a category error statement. It makes no sense.

That's not what I said, nor what I meant. 

Your opinion is no better than a coin toss.

If you can unequivocally falsify my theory, then you would eliminate the possibility/probability of my theory completely, and make it a completely silly notion.

Seeing as there are hundreds of millions of atheists that would align entirely with my theory, it would be quite a coup if you could do that.

No, of course not.

But, we can use the Null Hypothesis argument, and go in circles till the sun explodes...

How can that possibly be?

You have nothing but conjecture about a god.

Yes.

It may/may not have happened.

Their 'predictions' are based on their personal conclusions. Because of that, they're wrong, quite often.

I don't care much for how philosophers and logicians use the subjective terms 'false' and 'true', or 'wrong' and 'right'.

Their semantics are terrible, and lead to non sequiturs and semantic fallacies.

The most blatant one that appears around here all the time is "Atheism is false". Which is a nonsensical statement, in 2 ways.

No.

Not at all. That could never be my contention. I know otherwise. I'm very skeptical of even my own 'logic'. Logic is just a preoccupation I flirt with. It's not a dogma for me.

I don't assume logic to be a foolproof method of prediction, or determining anything accurately and/or comprehensively.

I don't see a purpose for not being skeptical, of much.

100% agreed.

But, without having the opportunity to study the premises extensively, for purposes of verification/falsification, then the best you can claim about your premises, are 'educated guesses', which brings us full circle to 'personal opinion' once again.

There's no debate about that. Human logic is based on human thought. As such, humans can be terribly poor at making reliable predictions.

I see it constantly, with veteran PhD's, engineers, chemists, programmers, etc.

That's why the shift to computers for modeling. They are exponentially better, and magnitudes faster than even the most highly skilled groups of humans.

6 days and counting...

Fuzzy logic uses 'degrees' of 'truth', instead of 'absolute' true/false.

I'll give you a great example:

"What goes up, must come down"

That was 'considered' true for how many thousands of years???

Your game (the theists game) is to play up 'logic' as if it's never been unreliable. That if something makes sense to us, then it is reality.

As if reality conformed to our minds.

As if reality behaved in a pure linear fashion.

As if by intuition we could accurately predict an a priori with absolute accuracy.

It was never the case, no matter what you, or any other person thinks or claims.

The only way to distinguish between absolute certainty and a high possibility/probability, is by trial and error, with strict controls.

And any scientist worth his salt, will know that behaviours are dependent on many variables, such as temperature, gravity, atmosphere, time, etc.

What you think is absolutely certain under 1 set of circumstances, predicts nothing under another set of circumstances. Absolutely nothing.

Under the circumstances, that's merely a idea that you believe is compatible with reality, but with no evidence.

That's not very 'scientific'. That's 'wishful thinking'.

However, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you couldn't be correct, at least, to some degree.

But, not in the way, you'd like it to be.

Listen, you don't even understand enough about how your premises are not 'workable' at all, let alone 'true'.

So, posturing that you are have devised an 'absolute certainty' of a god, is the most intellectually bankrupt assertion you could possibly make.

The best you could possibly come up with, is a synthetic approximation in your mind.

That's simply an idea.

But, then running around telling everyone that the idea in your mind is absolute reality because you imagine reality must conform to your thoughts, is being completely unrealistic.

However, you claim that you are immune to being wrong, because you use 'logic'.

Which is utterly stupid.

Simple arithmetic can illustrate why.

Garbage in = Garbage in

Hindsight being 20/20, demonstrates that Garbage in=Garbage out.

Human logic is derived from nature. It is contingent upon the universe.

You mean that because something is on the news, and reported, it must be absolutely accurate?

That's news to me...

Actually, it is your opinion, based on what you've seen.

It is your opinion, based on what you've seen.

Were you there?

I doubt it. I wasn't either. However, it's not difficult to assume that it is a fact, for the simple 'reason' that it is hardly an anomaly, or supernatural phenomenon.

Ergo, we cannot draw any parallels with supernatural claims.

I'm glad you stuck your neck out on this one...

Whether you're intentionally being obtuse, or genuinely not astute enough, or perceptive enough, to know that 'true' and 'false' have become completely banal in meaning, in colloquial speech and narratives.

They have become rheotical and hyperbolic devices, no doubt, because of their abuse, by religion. The terms 'true/false' in sermons and proselytizing, have diminished their veracity as narratives.

Much like 'honesty'.

Sacred Truth being a good example. How ironic that even the church indicates that there are more than one kind of 'truth'.

In science, 'truths' only become 'law' when they cannot be falsified, under strict scrutinity, and by cross examination by rivals.

1- There is no 'atheism', just as there is no 'not pregnantism'

2- Being pregnant is a dichotomy. Either/Or

Being 'pregnant' is a state.

Being 'not pregant' is a state.

Being pregnant is a (+) positive state.

Being not pregant is a ( ) neutral state.

They are NOT opposite states.

Who am I to not speak of semantic fallacies?

You are conflating 'logic' (the math) and 'human thought processes', and 'human abilities to make a priori reliable predictions that are compatible with reality'.

Since 'reality' shapes our 'minds' to conform with 'reality', we can never get ahead of 'reality'.

We just play 'catchup'.

Hindsight is the ONLY absolute method of 20/20.

Reality is constrained, obviously. It is not 'limitless'.

Otherwise it wouldn't 'work'.

Try and wrap your head around that last part. That is where your whole problem is.

Nope.

Reality is not contingent on human minds. Just as it's not contingent on rocks.

I'd be insane if I didn't.

I'm glad you stuck your neck out on this one, as well.

I'm simply 1 step ahead of you (theists). I'm making certain to make it absolutely clear, that it's 'human' thought processes that I'm referring to, and not the strawman of 'logical absolutes' that the TAG argument is based on.

The 'absolutes' absolutely exist, obviously.

A complete understanding of how they 'work', is something we do not understand very well, beyond the sub atomic level.

Exactly.

Using 20/20 hindsight, to be precise.

In order to make sure ALL the constraints are accounted for, and are sufficiently detailed enough, to demonstrate the principle reality that we are attempting to model.

I doubt you realize just how much math, physics, and Euclidian geometry there is, just to relatively approximate the shell of a (theoretical) egg, somewhat accurately, at 1 fixed point on a construction plane in a computer model.

That represents a simple peripheral model.

And that is without any physical attributes assigned to the model.

If it weren't for micro chips, you could fill a room with paper depending on the resolution and bit depth of a digital model, that is only somewhat representative of reality which all indications are, travels up to c (speed of light).

So.....you say you have some data that you'd like us to work with?

Lay it on me...

That's not being realistic.

Stop filibustering.

You claim you have a 'sound' argument.

I say you don't.

I say you have nothing more than a circular argument.

You've got data? Let's see it.

God is (x)?

Define x

No.

That's not going to work. At all.

I didn't ask for your personal narrative, or personal assurances.

I asked for data. Something that is impartial.

If you want to use some form of 'logic' which is contingent on the premises being compatible with reality, then you need to present more than a subjective personal narrative, or 'approximation'.

I agree that it's important that we do this fairly. I don't think I'll ever change your mind, and I know you'll never change mine.

That's why you and I are 1 on 1 in this thread. Forget about those other threads, where I was over the top.

You said "I define God as...", and then went on to say "Other people may define God differently...".

How is that not personal?

Well, there's a problem that's glaring to me, right there. William Lane Craig's 'narratives' are infinitely more 'elastic' than the ones from antiquity. He's always got an eye on the latest scientific findings, and doesn't seem to be so literal about biogenesis, and seems to readily accept that the universe began from a singularity, instead of from the book of genesis.

So, there's a huge disconnect in 'narratives'. I've watched dozens of hours of his debates. He doesn't actually win debates at all, in my opinion. He just argues from incredulity.

I'm glad you asked. Because I really think it's relevant to any dialogue that I have with theists. I am about as 'pure' an atheist as you might find. I was born into a completely secular home, and so were both my parents. You will not find any crosses or any such religious or spiritual symbols or imagery, in any of my parents, grandparents, or aunts and uncles's homes. Not even any jewelry they might wear.

I went to Protestant School. They did not have 'religion' in school, nor any symbols, or imagery. The first time I heard of a god was from a kid who lived on our street, who mentioned god, and I was like, who? What? He told me what is was, and I was like, wha???

I asked my mother about it, and she just said that some people believe in ghosts and spirits and stuff like that, and even this was totally alien to me. It wasn't 'scary', it just didn't make sense. Invisible, or people who appear in smoke, was what I was thinking. It just didn't make sense.

I asked my mother if she 'believed' in these things, and her answer was simply, no.

My parents are European, and lived in many different areas. She told me that everywhere you go, there are different legends and folklores, about superstitious stuff.

And that was it. From then on, I noticed that people talked about gods, and angels, and devils, and stuff, and it was to me, all that 'smokey spirit' stuff that some people believe in, like Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, or how some kids talked to their dolls, or imaginary friends, and would claim they talk back to them.

I'm not trying to poke fun. That's honestly how I saw it. It was just something some people did, because it gave them some kind of entertainment, or value.

To me, it was a different version of 'the voice in your head', that I think most of us think we hear/sense/whatever, when we have 'internal dialogue'.

You might find it difficult to imagine anyone so isolated from the bible, but, I knew about as much about the bible, as I did about the Kuran, except that I had heard about the legend of the crucifixion of Jesus, who was a guy born in a manger, to a virgin mother, and 3 wise men, and he walked on water, and Christmas was to celebrate his birthday.

I had know idea that Christians came from Jews, until I was in my late 20's, when my Jewish accountant wish me 'Happy Holidays, and God bless', just before Christmas, as he shook my hand. I was shocked. I stood there like a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to say while this guy was shaking my hand.

I asked a friend who I knew went to church, how could he possibly say 'God bless', when God was a Christian thing???

I was that clueless. I didn't know that the great divide between the 2 factions was that the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, and that the Christians believe that the Messiah was Jesus.

I still to this day, don't know what bible or holy book the Jews read.

Religion to me, was like Astrology. Something of a self indulgence. A little bit of harmless wishful thinking/spiritualism, that some people flirted with, and some people took way too seriously.

I thought it was more about a system of going to church, and people congregating as a means to spiritually 'connect' with a 'communal sense of good'. Kind of like an 'honour system' spiritual club, and that the gods and angels were simply 'symbolic'.

Sorry, I've rambled. But, I think you wanted an honest answer, in order to have honest dialogue.

That's how I viewed 'God', up until a not too long ago. I've never even been in a relationship with a woman who believed in God. Ever. It's never been a subject of dialogue.

I didn't even know that God was not simply some ghostly (I guess you could say 'physical') being, till recently.

It's all new to me. Like which religion believes that the world is on the backs of 2 turtles?

It all sounds like folklore to me. It never occured to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that.

I'm an engineer. I'm disciplined to view things from a very 'neutral' view. No bias. Anything can be possible, unless it's incompatible with something else.

So, back to how you 'define' god.

Those 'qualities' are not 'attributes'. You cannot properly model anything with them, as there's no way to distinguish anything from nothing. Kinda of like a dimensionless number.

In the 'strictest' sense, those qualities are not 'workable'. They cannot do any 'work'. I'm not sure if you get what I mean when I say that. Only with constraints can you establish an amount of 'work', which then can be quantified, and 'scaled'.
 

And the strawman of 'I love my wife, can you measure that?', isn't going to work. I'll shred that to pieces.

If I'm told there's 1 God. That's a constraint right there. If I'm told that God is unlimited, that's an enormous problem, and very 'constraining', and logically contradicts that there can only be 1 entity.

  I've given redneF and his debate opponents access into the One on One debate forum.  Sorry I didn't get to it sooner.  Typical users aren't able to post in this forum, only people who have been granted entry.  This will help eliminate any future moderation issues in these threads.  

What presuppositions?

I asked my mother a question after some kid on my street mentioned this person/thing he called God, about who/what 'god' was, and she told me some people believe in certain supernatural things, while others don't.

How is that a presupposition?

Your reading comprehension skills aren't very good. You've misconstrued what I told you, and are jumping to conclusions.

I said that I was the one that concluded it must be similar to how people indulge in having conversations with things that don't talk back, ( be it a doll, a dog, a car, etc...) or with themselves ('So I said to myself...').

Your reading comprehension skills aren't very good. You've misconstrued what I told you, and are jumping to conclusions.

No offense, but, that's your 'predisposition'.

I'd only ever discussed it as a child with my mother, the 1 time. She never said 'there is no God'. I asked her if she believed that there was a God, and she said she did not, but that other people did. She was very clear on that, that 'different people believe different things', and that there are different legends and folklores when you go from country, to country.

I was clear on that.

However, my mother was superstitious, and believed in spirits, and ghosts, and poltergeists. She is 'convinced' she can feels them, at times. She has said so, on many, many occasions. She also believes that she can 'sense' supernatural things. Like when I was a kid, she thought that she could sense that I was in 'danger', before it happened (after she found out it happened), and 'project' that 'See? I felt that you were in danger!'.

When, the fact is, I was always a rambunctious kid, and was constantly being mischievous.

She and her friends read tea leaves. Well, they were 'taught' what was believed to be the method to read into the future. She would indulge every so often, when visiting a certain friend, in having her 'cards' read.

So, while not 'theistic', she was a 'supernaturalist', I guess you could say.

My father? Oblivious, to it all. Him and I have never had any dialogue about gods, or supernatural stuff. He doesn't pay any attention to anything but sports, and a little bit about politics. That's it. He's a very simple man.

Do you strawman every single thing?? I describe something clearly, yet, you seem to misinterpret and misconstrue into something entirely different, anyways.

I said I'm 'disciplined to view things from a 'neutral' perspective', as an engineer.

We are discussing how you claim a God is 'engineered'. I'll analyze the data, from a 'neutral' perspective. Just like I would if I look at a schematic. I have no 'bias' when looking at a schematic, I've never seen before. How can I?

About what? Reverse engineering things?

I don't see how that's possible. It's non productive. If I 'presuppose' one way, or the other, I haven't actually done anything but presuppose. I can't 'bill' people for that.

The distinguishing quantitative attributes and variables/constants, that distinguish X from Y.

Build it in reality, or simulation (virtual reality), and 'test' it if 'works' or not.

Whether X  can, (or likely could), 'produce' any results.

The universe is a time/space continuum, with particles, and forces, that do 'work'. The universe is not 'static'.

Our brains are like 'digital' storage devices. And are very, very, very slow.

Our brains 'sample' (record at a sample rate, and bit depth) and 'truncate'(edit) blocks of this (recorded) space/time continuum, in the 'buffer' of our brain. We usually refer to this 'sample' as an 'event'. 

Events are 'work' during a 'period' of the space/time continuum.

All 'work' is attributable to 'something' that is 'quantifiable', be it particles, energy, forces, etc...

So, we need the 'data'. Quantifiable data. Not 'qualitative' subjective human emotional values, like 'endless', 'limitless', 'timeless', 'everlasting',  etc. Those 'qualitative' terms are 'narratives', like 'breathtaking', 'beautiful', 'shocking', 'amazing', and are superfluous to accurately distinguishing the 'mechanics' of X at 'work'.

So, I'm not looking for what you, and/or others 'feel' what X is.

Just show us the data, of how it's thought this '1st cause' of the entire universe theory , 'works'.

The 'attributes', please.

I also need to point out that my original question was 'What does God mean to you?'

You still haven't answered.

I do know what 'indoctrination' is.  'Indoctrinate', according to Webster, refers to the act of imbuing someone with partisan opinion.  By your own admission, you were raised in a secular household.  Your quote was,"I was born into a completely secular home, and so were both my parents."

You were also told by your mother that God belief was like belief in ghosts and spirits.  You made the following quotes:  "I asked my mother about it, and she just said that some people believe in ghosts and spirits and stuff like that";"I asked my mother if she believed in these things, and her answer was simply, no";"She told me that everywhere you go, there are different legends and folklores, about superstitious stuff";"And that was it.  From then on, I noticed people talked about gods, and angels, and devils, and stuff, and it was to me, all that smokey spirit stuff that some people believe in, like Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny."  

How is that not indoctrination?

And by your own admission, any mature perspective on the issue is new to you.  As you stated, "It never occurred to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that."

It does not matter how many conversations you've had.  That has no bearing on my point, which is that this was indoctrinated into you as a child.  My parents may have told me only one time that God existed, but if from that one conversation God belief sounds reasonable to me, and religion is propagated in my household via various iconographic symbols, then I think you could call it indoctrination.  What's important, however, is that when you get older, you are invited to examine the issue in more depth and encouraged to pursue the issue in higher education so as to intellectually embrace your religion as an adult.

This is what came out of your mouth (or your fingers):  "It never occurred to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that."

If you already understood God as a philosopher understands him, then how could you not be aware of the KCA or OA?

No, but according to you there was no exposure to these things even into adulthood (your words were "till recently" ).

It's not important to me either.  What's important to me is why the universe began, or more generally why anything exists at all.

Um, no.  This is what you said:  "In the strictest sense, those qualities are not 'workable'.  They cannot do any 'work'";"Those qualities are not attributes.  You cannot properly model anything with them".

First, you state emphatically that they are not attributes, now they may be attributes?  Make up your mind.

You're jumping ahead; focus on the current point:  You said that a concept such as 'eternity' is not an attribute, because it is not 'workable'; are you now willing to recant what you just stated, in light of the fact that many physicists invoke the idea in a different context?

That's a presupposition.  You are assuming that mind-body philosophers only engage in junk science, based on your presuppositions about methodologies.  I told you that your lack of neutrality will become obvious as we engage in the discussion, and it is happening right now.

Focus on the topic please.  Do not digress.  (Although I could easily rip this point to shreds.)

Please focus on the topic.  Stop digressing.  Self-existence has nothing to do with TAG.

Presupposition:  You are assuming that truth is based on practicality.

Presupposition: You are assuming that scientific method is the only valid producer of truth.

You are presupposing, without qualification, that those are indeed the mechanics of reality; you have yet to justify any of this.

What matters are the facts, and you've yet to justify your presuppositions as fact.  You've done nothing but make assertions.

Give me an example of an argument with true premises, a valid form, but a false conclusion.  I'm waiting.

There is not a single sound argument you can give that will prove the existence of the FSM--not a single one.  If you disagree, go ahead and try making one.

No.  I'm not interested in your assertions.  Please provide evidence that your methodology is more valid than mine; can you give an example where a true conclusion is not produced by true premises and a valid form?

Um, no.  You are making yet another presupposition that the God issue has been declared inconclusive, when in fact most people in the world have no issue believing in God.  You, sir, are in the minority.  The God issue, as far as we are concerned, is resolved; to deny the existence to God, for us, is like denying the existence of trees.  Certainly, you can make the case that trees do not really exist, just as you attempted to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to prove that Tsunami didn't happen in Japan, but your efforts will be in vain.  

You've offered nothing of substance so far.  All you've done is make assertions, presuming your methodology to be valid without qualification.  Do you have anything of substance to offer--anything at all?

Distinguishing between reality and fantasy is what we are debating; what bearing does the possibility of producing results have on truth?  If I can present a sound argument for God, then I will have proven God to be real.  

It's not necessary to know 'mechanics' in order to know that something exists.  People are able to experience God in their own lives without knowing the mechanics by which he manifested himself to them.  Furthermore, if God created the universe, then it is unreasonable to presume that his mechanics would comport with those that are predicated of this universe alone.

It's not a double standard.  I'm asking you to justify your presuppositions.  Are you able to do that or not?

I didn't attack the scientific method.  I asked you to justify that it is the only producer of truth.

How the hell is it a rhetorical question?!  What does 'God' mean to you?

Why would that be such a difficult question?????

Do you really need to obfuscate this much?  Just answer the damn question!  

Assuming that the scientific method doesn't apply in all places at all times is 'attacking' it?  Is your devotion to science so fervent that any suggestion of its inapplicability in some areas constitutes for you some sort of attack?  

Wow.  If I ever needed further justification for the idea that naturalism is a religion, you have just provided it.

Your definition of 'work' (seen here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29082#comment-337041) was the production of results.  

My point is, that work is not part of the debate of whether something exists; the question is not whether God can produce results, but rather the question is whether God exists.  This is not an issue of production; this is an issue of truth.

Many truths, such as the fact that some grandmother or other in Seattle has a box of cookies in her pantry, produce no results whatsoever for me.  

So, even if it is true that the scientific method is the best way to determine how something produces results, the point is inconsequential to this debate.  Even if God produced no results, he may still exist.

Again, I don't care how God works.  That is not a question that I am interested in.  What I care about is what God wants.

If I can formulate a sound argument whose conclusion is such that it says something works, then I will have proven something works.

But I'm just going to pull the rug out from under you right now, because you've totally set up yourself for this:

You define 'work' as the production of results.  You claim that the scientific method is the best way to determine what works.

Did you use the scientific method in order to determine that the scientific method works?

If not, then you are utilizing something less than reliable in order to determine what works, thus refuting your previous point; if so, then your reasoning is circular, as you are presupposing it works in order to prove that it works.

So, you are stuck.  You've trapped yourself with a self-refuting claim.  

Do I care?

I'm asking what 'God' means to YOU--not to anyone else but yourself.

Umm, that's easy.  The Loch Ness Monster is an animal residing in some lake in Ireland.  I could go into further details, but I don't feel like going through Wikipedia.

A unicorn is a horse with one horn; what is so difficult about that?

Is that why you don't have the balls to call him and debate him live?  You display a lot of braggadocio here, but you definitely wouldn't act this way in real life.  Haha

You are telling *me* what is sufficient to prove a being the metaphysical perspective of whom, by your own admission, you've only recently encountered?  You couldn't even define what you mean by 'God'; how can you begin to tell me what is and is not adequate?  

I love it when atheists plead ignorance whilst boasting that God, if real, ought to be this and ought to be that.  Why not actually humble yourself and learn something for once in your life?

I'm not going to give any evidence until we get over this hurdle.  I've already shown your position to be self-refuting; please accept that not all factual questions are answered in the same way, that the production of results is not pertinent to questions of truth, and that truth itself may be produced by something other than the scientific method.  I'm not going to hand hold you through your presuppositions and only prove whatever comports with them.  

Where have I stated any of those things?  I've yet to present an argument in this thread.

I'm not showing you anything until you accept being wrong and correct yourself.

HA HA HA HA

You just totally got OWNED!  I'm sorry.  There is no way I lose this debate.  I'm clearly the winner here, and I don't boast that often.  But you just totally dodged the question.
 

Of course you want it to be here.  Live debate would require you to think of your feet.  Here, you can research your answers and get coaching from other atheists via PM.  

This is not real life; this is you hiding behind a veil of text.  

Now you are being dishonest, though this does not shock me.  You are so desperate that you have to chop my sentences in half and quote them out of context?  You know very well that "I'm not going to give any evidence" was not the complete sentence.

The debate topic is 'personal reasoning'.  You chose this topic, not me.  Do not choose a particular topic if you are expecting me to go into something completely different.  

"Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd" demonstrates that it is stupid?  Simply declaring something to be stupid makes it so?  

Okay. Watch this:

You are stupid.

See?  I said it.  Now I've demonstrated that you are stupid.

It was a perfectly legitimate question, and you dodged it.  Therefore, I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.  I've shown your position to be self-refuting; thus, there is no need for me to go on.

I told you:  I use a priori reasoning in order to prove that God exists.  I am not saying it is 'better' than science; I'm saying that in certain domains of discourse, the scientific method does not apply.  Somehow, you construed this as an attack on your religion on naturalism, but I'm merely stating that science is not appropriate for everything, only some things.

I won.  I've exposed your position as self-refuting, such that you were force to dodge my bolded question.  There is no need for me to go on, and this will be my last response to you.

Now you are moving the goalposts.  You said the debate topic was personal reasoning; now you are saying that it is proving that God exists.

Then, you spoke about what 'works', or produces results.  Now you are talking about what distinguishes reality from unreality.  

You are an ADHD child with the inability to focus on one particular thing at a time.  This was a no contest.

This debate is over.  I win.  There will be no more replies to you here.

Since my opponent has copped out via his red herring 'exit strategy' that I outlined earlier, I'll be carryingon without him, and demonstrate that it was just to attempt to end the inevitable humiliation he was not going to be able to avoid.

He's actually done a great service to this thread, as I do not have to go in circles with him, and I can focus on reverse engineering the 'logical fallacies', and pulling all the 'kingpins' on the 'trainwreck' arguments.

A few things earlier in the thread that are important, that I'd like to touch on again, and make clear.

I'll still simulate 1 on 1 dialogue, to avoid a dissonance should my opponent wish to re-engage.

I never stated that it WAS invented.

If you'd only read what I did say:

"I was under the impression that the formalized origins of 'logic' were historically thought to be a Greek

discipline invented by either Plato, or Aristotle.

No?

In any event, I don't know why historians would even try and attribute that 'logic' was 'invented'. Intuition

and structured reasoning and problem solving obviously has been around much longer than that."

Don't blame me. It's religious people who have different 'beliefs' that are incompatible with other religions' beliefs, and they all call their 'beliefs' 'truths'.
The term is completely abused and bastardized, and has become banal. It carries no weight anymore.
Very much like 'honest', or 'sorry'.

Reality 'works' a certain way. Most people have such a weak understanding of the scientific method, that they simply underestimate the vast distinction between scientific 'understanding' and careful observation.

The 'overall' approach to the 'argument for a god' is not a sound approach, and pales in comparison to the rigours of science.

This is undeniable.

The 'arguments' are not sound, for the simple reason that they are built on naked assertions (that I will go through in subsequent posts), from the very, very beginning.

If you haven't falsified the very things that could cause your reconstruction of reality to collapse, you clearly demonstate that being incorrect, innacurate, mistaken, and producing 'false positives' is something you can afford the luxury of, and are willing to adopt a false positive as legitimate.

The obvious real life parallel are the 'false positive' paternities of children, where it as 'assumed' that just because a woman had sexual intercourse with man (A) and had a baby, was no reason to assume that the baby was not the result of a man other than man (A).

Prior to science, all man (A) could really do was 'believe' and have 'faith' that the paternity of the child was his.

Clearly, this absolutely, and unequivocally certifies that 'belief' and 'faith' , and 'logic' based on unfalsified assumptions is an abhorrent method of 'logically' determining paternity, or 'truth' of absolute 'origins'.

Only a fool would suspend skepticism.

And many a fool who thought they were 'correct' and knew the 'truth', have walked the earth, and opened their mouths and removed all doubt of their inanity.

The ridicule of my opponent will continue...