Something regarding atheism vs religion - not sure yet

No friend, YOU are not reading what I write and wasting my time. A working definition of the supernatural is not optional; it is what this conversation is about. I don't have any particular attachment to the word itself; but the concept is indispensable to a meaningful conversation. Like debating global warming while rejecting any convention for measuring temperature. Neither is methodological naturalism (MN) optional to the discussion. You seem to think it is a term invented by atheists to rule out God by definition. In reality, it is a term describing what science can and cannot do. And, the reason you don't see this is because of your flawed definition of the supernatural (or the lack of one). You think that by talking about the supernatural and MN and other stuff I am intentionally or unintentionally stalling from coming up with a specific God hypothesis that you can then proceed to debunk. This, even though I have repeatedly demonstrated that I don't need to do this to have a case. The reason you think this way is because you see God as an independent concept, the non-existence of which carries no major implications. And this again stems from flawed definitions. --- You bring up the rules of evidence that apply to God speaking in your head but I haven't started talking about that yet. I am still dealing with God and His connection to nature. --- I find it equally ridiculous that you don't think it's rational to believe in God in a 50/50 situation. If there's a 50/50 chance of rain do you take an umbrella? But even this doesn't matter very much. If we found one thousand people who had never thought about the concept of a God and explained to them that, at this point in our scientific advancement, it's about 50/50 that the universe either developed naturally or was engineered by an intelligent being, a good number of them would start taking the God possibility seriously. And, if you got up and gave them a two hour lecture on why it is irrational to believe in God in a 50/50 situation, chances are most of them will just ignore you and believe in God anyway. The real problem is that atheist/agnostics/skeptics/many scientists etc. paint a picture of reality that's very different than this 50/50 scenario, when in fact, they have no rational/scientific grounds for doing so. And this is robbing people of the ability to make informed decisions, it is skewing how they evaluate all other subsequent evidence, it is detrimental to society as a whole and therefore demands a response. Even if you're right regarding the correct reaction one should have to a 50/50 ratio, that's still no excuse to lie to people. That's why the debate must be centered here. Debating anything else is entertainment (something I don't have time for, so please find someone else to do it with). Debating this is a necessity. (Even if you don't think this applies to you it, it does apply because it is the direction your arguments are tending) --- You brought up the Christian God yet again after I spent more than half my last post on seven solid reasons why this isn't a discussion we're going to be having. So maybe this will register a little better: the next time you bring up the Christian God, I'm done. --- Otherwise, if you still want to continue, I have no particular attachment to debate.org per se. But I do want to do this at a public location that's neutral and structured: controlled by an impartial third party, has time/space/round limitations even if looser than here, each person gets equal time, people can't gang up on you, etc. Don't know of any other place like that but if you find one, great. I will need 1-2 months before the next round but I don't mind going first next time so you get the last word. But really, the problem we're having here is not lack of time/space but that we're all over the place instead of picking one topic and sticking with it. --- Your counter to Pascal's Wager only works when the wager is used in connection with a specific creed. Let's consider for a second a situation where it is 100% certain that the universe was created but we knew absolutely nothing more beyond that. This is not the same type of situation like when someone claims, for example, that unicorn Bob exists. That would be a fact that we would have no idea what to do with without further info. " 100% certainty that the universe was created means, as already mentioned, that an extremely powerful being exists that could potentially wipe us out of existence at will. It also means that some serious thought and effort was put into making us. Since, if someone was just in the mood to create an universe, they could have simply created a few rocks floating around in space instead. Based on this information alone, some people might choose to start looking to connect with this God, to make requests, to live their lives mindful that someone could be watching etc. And, a 50% chance, instead of 100% is still a good chance." For this to be turned into a wager you could use your wager-rebuttal against, someone would have to make specific claims about what this God expects besides what can be directly known from the mere fact that the universe was created. --- You bring up the trillion God hypothesis that are equally likely to be true but not sure why a God could only care about one set of aliens at a time. And, my generic hypothesis includes all of these. --- I don't know where you're getting that I'm making WLK's arguments in any way. He's usually my go to example for what arguments not to make against atheists." --- As far as I can tell, there is a lot of miscommunication and, the only way I know how to correct this is to pick the most foundational topics, take them one at a time and develop something that we can build on. The most crucial in my opinion is defining the supernatural followed closely by a discussion of Methodological Naturalism. If I get to make the opening statement next time that's what I intend to focus on. I'm on a business trip and low on sleep so I probably won't get much more done than this before my time runs out so let me just end with some MN homework for you for next time. I made a distinction for you that you just ignored so let me make it again. Everything you are saying about MN is true in regards to supernatural events happening now. If an angel appears, if a healing takes place, if a person is a psychic; any imaginable supernatural event that happened would be subject to science. What about an event that happened far in the past? Let's say the first living cells were made by an angel and then evolution took over from there? How would you study that? If you came up with that as a hypothesis what predictions would you make that you could then test out?