Oh, good. Let’s see what we can do about that at PS.
As in to see if you can deconvert me? If so, I’m 100% positive I can defend atheism ( I considered myself a metaphysical naturalist) better than you. You know what would be fun? A debate where we argue the opposing position.
I’m not sure if he is bluffing, but it would be entertaining to see. I’m not sure how well @patrick would do though. I guess he’d just “convert” to atheism after the first round and start arguing alongside @T.j_Runyon. Throwing the match, no fun!
If I was debating @T.j_Runyon I would go for the laughs and win the debate by sheer arguments from absurdity from the complete oppose direction. @T.j_Runyon would be easier to debate than @Mung who is much more of a moving target. But I am glad we are not a debating blog. It would take away from meaningful communications among a diverse crowd.
Yeah I agree. It is more fun to build real community, and actually understand where everyone is coming from. I think I could also make a better argument for atheism too , the hard part will be finding an atheist that can make a solid argument for the Resurrection…
I think I can make the argument for a Resurrection that is purely spiritual and personal. Wrap up everything into a personal spiritual experience. Sort of like Paul did. Everyone’s experience of the Resurrection is private spiritual only. Nothing happened physically. It all happened metaphysically. And was and is outside the realm of science and reason. Then we all could go about our lives in peaceful coopetition .
Have you been following the explosion of threads on the Resurrection? There is evidence that certainly points towards the Resurrection, even if it were ultimately false. I think you can make a better case .
How do you know what id be like to debate? Lol.
See? This is what makes me want to watch this debate, in a comedic train wreck sort of way.
of course, and when the stake are low, all kind of humorous things can happen. That is how we got -colliders on head for driver licenses, Satanic Temple Coloring books for kids, blindfolds for boys for revealing prom dresses, and gay only church parking.
It’s not hard.
- God is a concept.
- Concepts can have real and meaningful effects on people.
- It is not necessary for a concept to have any physical existence.
- Therefore God exists.
The harder part is the definition of God.
Delusional thoughts exists also.
AND they are as real as any other concept. The difference, I would argue, is the value placed on those beliefs.
I don’t have time today to go into what I mean by “value”, but I call on the economic ideas of Utility Functions and Game Theory to support a claim that concepts (like gods) can lead to measurable value.