The Existence of a "Supreme Being," "Creator," or "God" is not Debatable

If only they could all be this way! We've covered quite a bit of ground here, and I believe that we may at this point be in danger of neglecting the original subject, at least as I saw it. Let's refocus; this wasn't (I believe) supposed to be about whether or not God actually exists, or whether or not some who would argue in favor of the existence of God always play by the rules, but whether or not God's existence is debatable at all. I would have to disagree with the assertion that this equates to whether or not this question can ever be resolved; quite clearly, each of us - or at least, I think, most of us - resolve it for ourselves, all the time. Must we be able to have everyone universally agree that the question has been answered, and all agree on the same answer, in order for the question itself to be "debatable? " I think not. As I said earlier, people on the opposite sides of ANY question can debate that question, and hopefully learn from the experience, so long as both are committed (as, I believe, we both have been here) to an honest and respectful search for the right answer - WHETHER OR NOT a single "right answer" is every actually discovered to the satisfaction of all involved. DO the "accepted rules of debate" become meaningless when dealing with "religious" questions? I don't think so. Saying that "religion has defined God's parameters as having no parameters" doesn't change this; defining God as lacking certain limits is not the same as saying that God has no parameters. If we say that God has no limits whatsoever, we've basically rendered the term "God" meaningless - the term could literally mean anything, everything, and nothing at all. A God who truly has NO limits could be simultaneously good and evil, all-knowing and completely ignorant, and other such nonsense. Any definition of God that points to a specific, identifiable concept must place limits upon God, simply because in making such a definition we are saying that God IS this, and NOT that. And, as I tried to point out earlier, any specific claim is open to question. We wind up with two possibilities: either God can be specifically defined or not. If a specific definition CAN be given for God, then those specifics are open to being tested and debated (and the more specific they are, the more clear this becomes). If God cannot be specifically defined, then I would have to agree that the question of the existence of such a God cannot be resolved OR debated. But in that case, it's because there's simply nothing to discuss; such a general, vague assertion, the kind which amounts to "God is whatever I say he is at the moment, and I don't have to be consistent from one moment to the next" is never debatable, whether we call the subject at hand "God" or use some other non-religiously-loaded label. But even within a discussion of a clearly-defined God - and we could say that at least some versions of the Christian model of God would qualify - is the "Well, God did it that way, and Some Things Man Is Not Meant To Understand" truly "playing by the rules" as opposed to avoiding them? I would submit that it is not. There are two possible cases that I can see here - either we're talking about a situation in which a non-supernatural explanation has been offered (in which case the "religious" response equates to, "well, yes, that's a valid explanation, but God was behind it anyway") or "God" is being offered as an explanation for something which has yet to be otherwise explained. The former case is actually one of the begging the question; the religious proponent, when faced with an alternative explanation, is saying 'well, yes, but since God exists, God is ultimately behind it! " when the existence of God is the question being debated in the first place! You cannot argue for something by simply assuming its correctness in your arguments, hence this is a case of not playing by the rules. The latter case is a bit more subtle, but still involves a fallacious argument. Giving "God did it! " as the explanation for an otherwise-unexplained phenomenon is actually the classic basis for primitive religion in the first place. God (or Gods) is/are the reason the lightning flashes or the tides rise and fall, to the primitive who cannot conceive of a non-supernatural explanation, or who does not have an understanding of the actual mechanisms behind these things. As our understanding of the natural world has grown, the range of things we see as being due to the direct intervention of God contracts. (This is, I think, what is behind much of the perceived enmity between religion and science - a fear on the part of the former that the latter may ultimately sweep it away entirely - but that's the subject for another debate. ) We should, though, by now be at the point where we see the flaw in simply pointing to God as the explanation for something, ESPECIALLY if that is being used as an argument in support of God's existence. Clearly, it's only valid to do so if you can show that there REALLY ARE no other possible explanations, and that is something that is very, very hard to do. To use it in an argument as evidence of God's existence, then, is most clearly stepping "outside the rules. " (Unless, of course, you really CAN show that God is the ONLY possible explanation. But to date, I haven't seen an example of this. ) So - can the existence of God be debated? I think we've shown that it can. Will we ever resolve the question to everyone's satisfaction? Of course not - but that can be said for practically any question that can be or has been debated. Some people (on EITHER side of the issue) simply aren't interested in rational arguments, and will believe what they choose to believe regardless of what is shown in a debte. ANY debate. If resolving the question to the satisfaction of all were a requirement for something to be considered "debatable," then I would submit to you that NOTHING could be considered "debatable. " And I see nothing else which might be considered a reason for special-casing the question of God's existence.