“It's true there are no proofs outside of Math and logic, but the things I argue are based upon logic.”
Ah. But logic is just a tool for evaluating IDEAS. With logic, you can prove that the IDEA of God is valid, given certain assumptions, but that’s not proving that GOD is valid in real life.
I could construct logic to support the idea of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but even if she’s Logical, that doesn’t make her Real,bless her holy tint.
“And anyone who wants to debate the existence of God must first accept for the sake of argument that God could exist.”
Why? That’s part of your burden. Prove that gods could exist, prove that one does exist, prove that he/she/it is connected in any way to your bible, prove that the Bible reflects H/S/I’s will, and so on.
“It's a logical foul to pretend to join such a debate and then automatically claim victory because one cannot prove what is accepted for the sake of argument.”
But what if i do not accept this possibility for the sake of argument?
I don’t see where any sort of perfect being of unlimited power with no source, origin, or zip code can exist in this universe. Now what?
“The debate itself is logical reasoning over hypotheticals.”
Then you don’t need me to assume it’s possible, since it remains hypothetical until you prove that it’s literal.
“ So, one can prove that certain things are logically true about those hypotheticals without proving them to be absolutely true.”
Sure. Sounds like masturbation, but this is possible.
“Also, it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God.”
By ‘existence,’ do you mean ‘the being as described in the Bible’? Much like arguing the powers of Gandalf as long as we’re talking the description in the novels.
“That's a tautology that goes something like this: 'Something is false because it cannot be true.'”
So, list your assumptions before you state your logic. We may not make it to your argument, though.
