There's Valid Reasons to Disbelieve in God

1. Let's start with this one: "A word can't be just any jumble of letters." What would you say a word is, then? A nicely organized set of letters? I hate to break it to you, my friend, but a word is exactly that: a jumble of letters. The thing a word represents does not give it meaning--we do."How can Con say the word God is different from the entity without using the word 'God' to explain it? You're (cringe) analogy with humans is false."Where to begin.Alright, if you didn't catch what I was saying in the above argument, let me emphasize this for the third time this debate: God the word and God the entity are separate.The word God represents the entity, but they are only one and the same to us. The word only has meaning... to us.Which means the word God is not universal. God's not defined by the word that we humans ascribe to him. For example, my real name is Alec, but I can assure you that I am not really "the leader of mankind", as the meaning of my name would have you believe.This all's irrelevant unless one remembers the point you're trying to make in this particular argument: Because the word's meaningless (it's not), God is meaningless.Really, you've already made my argument for me: "A word can't be be just any jumble of letters, a word is: A unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken words, that functions as a principle carrier of meaning.'" To us, the word God has meaning. Those jumble of letters which make up a word have meaning because we have ascribed meaning to it. Which means your argument is invalid, because the word God clearly has meaning, otherwise it would not be a word.Let's look at the second point you made: "... there's no way to define God."Well. "The being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." --Merriam WebsterApparently somebody figured it out.I don't really understand this: "There's no dispute on what to call it, the dispute is that you can't call it!" God. God. God. I'm calling it God. As have you, despite the fact that the word carries no meaning. Yet apparently it does, since when one of us uses the word God, it communicates meaning.2. Skip for space"How can you say you experience God if we have no understanding or experience of the attributes that make up God? How do you distinguish it from just something like psychosis, delusion or wishful thinking?"Billions of people claim to understand and experience God. I think we can agree that the majority of these people are not psychotic or delusional. Wishful thinking? Possibly. But believers aren't stupid. If their faith is based on wishful thinking, 1. it won't last long, and 2. they'll recognize it eventually, and when that time comes, I'm sure they'd seek deeper truth. You can't convince yourself with wishful thinking for very long.In response to the first question, we know plenty of the attributes that make up God. The Bible is crammed full of them. When people have a "supernatural" experience, they check to see if it lines up with Biblical descriptions."We can't subjectively definte something by subjective personal experiences. Would you conclude a 'zsgarbub' is meaningful if I claim to have a personal subjective experience with it?"No, I would not conclude that it's meaningful--but that's not the point; the point is, it's meaningful to YOU. However, more than one person has claimed to have had a "personal subjective experience" with God. Which means to millions of people, the word God has meaning. "If believers are the only ones who understand and experience God then how is Con going to prove there's reasons to believe in God."1. I never said I was going to prove there's reasons to believe in God. However, since it's apparently expected of me, I will do so further in the next round.Now, remember that people weren't BORN believers. They obviously had to come to believe in God like everyone else. Which means millions of people have all come to the same conclusion: "There is a God."That's a pretty powerful reason for you, right there. Furthermore, there MUST be reasons to believe in God, otherwise there wouldn't be so many intelligent folk who do, and you would not be trying to discount those reasons right now in this debate.3. "One need not understand something in order for it to have meaning. That's why I included experience."Well, isn't this a memorable moment. I'm sorry, but aren't you the same person arguing that in order to understand something, you must also experience it? Isn't that how you made a supposed "fallacy" out of my alien analogy? Hmmm.In reference to my alien analogy, you said, "The argument is about defining words, not events." But wait, aren't you the same person that said in order to define a word, you must first experience it? How can you experience something without it being an event? o.04. "Logic is relative." Google that phrase. See how many hits you get. Look at all the people giving formulas to explain how logic is relative.I chose the quote by John Irving because I figured you would take it better from somebody higher up than me. Apparently I was wrong. But if you're saying that wisdom can't come from novels or movies, then you're sorely mistaken."Furthermore, there's many reasons to show logic isn't relative. Logic is in math... etc. Does Con think these things are subjective? Does Con think disbelieving in math makes it untrue?"Does Pro think disbelieving in the word God makes it meaningless? You're misunderstanding the phrase "logic is relative". In the case of math, logic would be relative to math. I wasn't trying to encourage you to disbelieve in math, however.I was using the phrase to point out that, since religion IS subjective, logic IS relative in the case of believing in God. So simply because you find it logical to disbelieve, doesn't mean other people will.5. Skip for space--coincidentally, the same reason I skipped Martin and Smith. 6. Pro fails to understand both my point and classic Theistic reasoning. Christianity states that God created everything out of nothing. Your metaphor with the human attempting to lift a chair over his head is invalid--God is not a human, and therefore is not limited in the way humans are. 7. Skip"Why couldn't God make man in such a way that he would always freely choose good?"Do you even realize what you just asked me? If he made us so that we couldn't freely choose evil as well, it wouldn't be free will. It wouldn't be a CHOICE if there wasn't something else to CHOOSE."Even with free will we're still limited. For example, many things can be done to a building... however, we can't jump over the building."If evil were not an option--similar to jumping over a building--then we'd have no choice but to be good. I.E., the opposite of free will."According to Con evil came into existence when A&E sinned. Would this mean God wasn't good until they sinned? Since evil must exist ... to call something good."Here's a picture to help you understand: There's a field called Evil. It's pretty obscure and nobody bothers with it. One day, Satan says, "I'm going through that field."Everyone's like, "Sit down Satan, you're drunk."He insists he's going through that field.Some others stand up. "We'll go with you."You know the story from there.Then, one day, Eve realizes there's a path that leads through the field of Evil. "What's down there?" she asks Satan."Enlightenment," he says."Lead the way," she says.Do you understand? And as time goes on, the path grows wider and wider. "Epicurus' question "Why call him God?" was only to the response that God isn't able or willing, not the route you took."You clearly misunderstood the route I took. God judges actions after they happen. Epicurus' question is a trap, dear friend."Con says A&E are the reason why evil is in the world. However were Adam and Eve perfect? If so, then they couldn't become imperfect..." etc., etc., general rant.Please provide your source for believing that Adam and Eve were perfect.That's all.