There's Valid Reasons to Disbelieve in God

Thanks Con. A.N.C 1, God the word and the entity. What I mean by a word not being any jumble of letters is, you can't just write anything like “ruhbr” and call it a word. A word must have meaning. A word is a jumble of letters, but it's not just any jumble. Arg! I don't know how that amateur grammar mistake passed me! Apologies. I'm not sure what Con is saying here. It seems like he's saying that “God” can be subjectively defined. I'll expand on that in the next section. Con here seems to just be asserting “God” has meaning. Con then claims to have defined God, but this definition was already debunked in my opening statement. In the first place, when terms like “is loving”, “is forgiving”, and “brings about” are applied to God, they seem to mean something very different from what they mean when they are applied to human beings. For example, when we speak of a mother as being loving, we are referring in part to her behavior, and in particular the way she responds to her children. When we say that Jones brought about a fire, we are referring to certain of his bodily actions, such as his carelessly throwing a match onto a pile of paper. But when we say God is loving or God brought about a miracle, we cannot be referring to the behavior or bodily action of God, for He has no body. -Michael Martin When you define “God” you're referring to something other than we know. It's like saying a “carmfn” can dance, but it doesn't have legs or a body. Or that a sound wave is brown. You wouldn't be referring to dancing or brown, making the meaningless. This is where my argument comes from when saying the dispute is that you can't even call this thing “God” since the attributes are meaningless. Your (yay the right one) analogy was disputing what to call a human. 2, God is understood and experienced Con rules out psychosis and delusion just because the majority claims to experience God. This is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum. Con rules out wishful thinking by assuming that believers won't think wishfully. This is begging the question, the believer wouldn't come to these conclusions if they were wishfully thinking in the first place. Wishful thinking doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid, it just means someone is wishing that what they want confirms reality. Again the meaning of these attributes were refuted in my opening statement. They all refer to human context. This argument is a red herring. Experience God in a feeling sense isn't experiencing God's attributes. Con says that God is subjectively defined. However if true, to me and many others God is meaningless. If such a thing is meaningless then one can't hold the position “God exists”. Meaning there does in fact exist a valid reason to disbelieve in God. However does other religious experiences prove a valid reason to believe? No, because many different mutually exclusive religions claim to experience God [1][2][3] God was defined as “The Tri Omni Creator of the Universe”. Con in accepting must try to give this meaning. Appealing to different subjective definitions is then talking about something else other than the God we agreed upon. Yes Con, you were suppose to provide reasons to believe in God. I said this in R1, 2 and 3. R1 : “BOP is shared” “Round 2: My argument + Con's arguments and rebuttals.” R2: “Now to Con for his arguments and rebuttals.” R3: I specifically said “Con hasn't made a case for his proposition. The burden of proof was agreed to be shared in R1.” It wasn't “apparently” expected. Con attempts to prove there's reasons to believe because millions of people believe. This again is an argumentum ad populum and is just saying there exists reasons to believe, this is far from actually giving a reason. The debate resolution isn't “There's reasons to disbelieve in God”, it's “There's valid reasons to disbelieve in God” Someone can believe in God for a reason that isn't valid. 3, Alien analogy Con misunderstands what I'm saying in this one. Where have I said you have to understand something to experience it? I specifically said “Some attack premise 2 by stating something that is meaningful, but that we don't really have full understanding of. The premise isn't that we must understand and experience everything, just that something must refer to what we understand or experience in order to be meaningful.” I've said that you must understand or experience the attributes of God in order to experience it. If that's what you're referring to, I was saying in order to realize you're actually experiencing this thing called God you must know what it is (attributes) first. It's like saying “I experienced a cehuh, I don't know what it is, but I experienced it.” Con commits a strawman. Experiencing an event to give words meaning is different from actually defining with words, an event. I can define what a concert is without defining an experience of something happening at that concert. 4, Logic is relative Con tells me to Google the phase. Con still gives no reasons to believe this or source for what “formulas” he's referring to. Logic is the study of what is valid and what isn't [4]. Regardless of your point of view, you still need to provide evidence. This is what I did. I wouldn't get philosophical knowledge from movies or novels. I would prefer books on logic, philosophy, and debating. Even if you can get knowledge from novels, you still need reasons why the wisdom is true. What do you mean by “logic would be relative to math”? 2 + 2 equals 4 regardless of any point of view. Same with linguistics and computer science. Same with the philosophy of religion. 5, Skipped 6, God and the Universe Con claims I'm misunderstanding what he's saying, but doesn't explain how. If God created everything out of nothing, then that would include the Universe. Con says God isn't limited in the way humans are. Would this mean that God can create the Universe while simultaneously existing in the Universe? What I was saying is that the Universe would include any dimension. If you define the Universe as including some other dimension, then saying God exists in there would still fall under the logical contradiction. My argument still stands, God would still exist outside of a knowable dimension. The Problem of Evil. 1, Free will There can still be a choice between doing good or not acting at all. Con just above said “God is not a human, and therefore is not limited in the way humans are.” So if God was omnipotent, why can't he do both? Con ignores my questions about heaven and free will. He also doesn't touch upon my building analogy. Who decided that good and evil are inseparable? The building example showed we're still have limited free will. You can make the same argument, if we can't lift the building above our heads, our only choice would be to act on it. However we can choose to be passive. Con then says there was a field called evil that was ambulated into. However who made this field? This also contradicts Con's previous statement “Now, you're wondering, "How could evil exist in the first place?" It did not come into the world through God, but through us. He gave us the freedom of choice--theoretically, we could have obeyed every order he gave, never sinning. But instead we chose to eat from the apple, bringing evil and sin into the world.” My objection from eternal good and evil was unanswered. You clearly misunderstood the route I took. God judges actions after they happen. Epicurus' question is a trap, dear friend. How did I misunderstand it? Epicurus was responding to someone who was God isn't able or willing. This would also contradict two of the properties of God. Adam and Eve Con misunderstands this argument. Read over it again. Even if you say Adam and Eve weren't perfect, I still have an argument there. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org... ^ All within there.