Of course it’s pointless to argue the logic (or the lack thereof) of religious faith with a believer, because you’d already have to be harboring a ton of doubt to be open to an opposing point of view. But also from my own experience it’s fairly frustrating as exercises go. I was thinking this morning how it resembles an attempt to talk a child (or someone with psychotic delusions) out of believing in the imaginary playmate/monster in the room. At first you try and deny its presence, but after a while you have no choice but to set foot on the slippery slope of pretending to go along with it just for the sake of the argument.
That’s what one does when discussing the existence of any gods or otherworldly phenomena! It’s like looking at a blank spot in the space between you both and though it is clearly devoid of any entity, since nothingness is a lack of somethingness (no attributes, no qualities, NOTHING whatsoever to discuss) you end up talking about what could be there, even though it’s obviously, well, empty. That’s when you fall into the trap from which it is near impossible to extricate yourself, except to say the obvious which is: there’s NOTHING there to discuss, end of conversation.
So how does one engage in a meaningful debate about the non-existence of God …………… ?????(I really resent having to capitalize the first letter of that word. That’s why I’ve chosen to write NOTHING in all caps)