(February 12, 2010 at 11:24 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 10:10 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- God may not be suceptable to peer review, but our observations of aspects of said idea are. Attestable to millions of Christians.
2- Humans are limited to human experience, and our perceptions within a line of space-time. The historical trek of religion, supports God's existance outside of time and therefore doesn't limit him at all.

Ad 1) Verifiable to believers only??!! That's not a fallacy but just circular, I presume?
Ad 2) WTF do you mean with historical trek of religion?

---

1- You have the ability to become a believer and get the same results so not necessarily entirely circular, more oval
2-The attesting of God or Gods throughout the long span of history show that if said being exists, he is not mortal and exists outside our understanding of linear time. Is that better?

(February 12, 2010 at 1:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 12, 2010 at 11:24 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Where exactly do you observe logic in your fabulation?

The peer review occurs between those sharing the same belief. We can check if what either of us concludes is in line with both our understanding, and logically conclude if either of us is acting within acceptable parameters.

When considering the root of faith, or our own faith, and our reference for that faith as inherited in biblical text.

You are thus checking whether your fabulations match within your understanding. On the basis of what you've demonstrated here on AF that includes metaphorical interpretation, ambibuity of terms, lack of definition. That is not logic. Logic constitutes a far more rigorous framework than loose interpretation, not ambibuity of terms, special pleading, circular reasoning, cherry picking and what have you for logical fallacies. What you are doing has nothing to do with logic.

A lot of little strawmen equaleth one big strawman. If what you have to do to make your illogic work is misrepresent your opposition then so be it.

(February 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm)tackattack Wrote:

(February 12, 2010 at 11:24 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 10:10 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- God may not be suceptable to peer review, but our observations of aspects of said idea are. Attestable to millions of Christians.
2- Humans are limited to human experience, and our perceptions within a line of space-time. The historical trek of religion, supports God's existance outside of time and therefore doesn't limit him at all.

Ad 1) Verifiable to believers only??!! That's not a fallacy but just circular, I presume?
Ad 2) WTF do you mean with historical trek of religion?

---

1- You have the ability to become a believer and get the same results so not necessarily entirely circular, more oval
2-The attesting of God or Gods throughout the long span of history show that if said being exists, he is not mortal and exists outside our understanding of linear time. Is that better?

1- Everyone who has the inability to apply logic has the ability you're speaking of.
2- So the minute time interval called "the history of man" suffices as evidence to you? Homo sapiens exists for about 200,000 years in a very argument-friendly estimate. The big bang was 13,700,000,000 years ago. That means you wanna suggest that anecdotal account during 0,00146 % of the history of the universe suffices as evidence? Furthermore the logic of this is of course severely crippled. Things don't exist just because there is talk about it. Than mankind could do totally without viagra pills. Apart from that you conveniently sum over all god concepts although most seriously contradict each other. Please, get some reason in your reasoning.

---

(February 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A lot of little strawmen equaleth one big strawman. If what you have to do to make your illogic work is misrepresent your opposition then so be it.

That's a big strawman. Clean up your act and do some logic.

(February 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That's a big strawman. Clean up your act and do some logic.

Yes and it belongs to you! +1 =2 Nice going!

To clean up my logic would mean first cleaning up yours. I favour the let people clear up their own mess hypothesis.

Following the wisdom of God eh?

(February 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

(February 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm)tackattack Wrote:

(February 12, 2010 at 11:24 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 10:10 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- God may not be suceptable to peer review, but our observations of aspects of said idea are. Attestable to millions of Christians.
2- Humans are limited to human experience, and our perceptions within a line of space-time. The historical trek of religion, supports God's existance outside of time and therefore doesn't limit him at all.

Ad 1) Verifiable to believers only??!! That's not a fallacy but just circular, I presume?
Ad 2) WTF do you mean with historical trek of religion?

---

1- You have the ability to become a believer and get the same results so not necessarily entirely circular, more oval
2-The attesting of God or Gods throughout the long span of history show that if said being exists, he is not mortal and exists outside our understanding of linear time. Is that better?

1- Everyone who has the inability to apply logic has the ability you're speaking of.
2- So the minute time interval called "the history of man" suffices as evidence to you? Homo sapiens exists for about 200,000 years in a very argument-friendly estimate. The big bang was 13,700,000,000 years ago. That means you wanna suggest that anecdotal account during 0,00146 % of the history of the universe suffices as evidence? Furthermore the logic of this is of course severely crippled. Things don't exist just because there is talk about it. Than mankind could do totally without viagra pills. Apart from that you conveniently sum over all god concepts although most seriously contradict each other. Please, get some reason in your reasoning.

---

(February 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A lot of little strawmen equaleth one big strawman. If what you have to do to make your illogic work is misrepresent your opposition then so be it.

That's a big strawman. Clean up your act and do some logic.

---

1- the inability to apply logic? come on no need to slash at tires. You could have just as easily said those with the ability to not use logic (which indeed does include you). Dodge through personal attacks much? You can choose to attempt an unbiased approach (or at least try both sides of an arguement), but you are obviously "inable" to.. I guess the true test would be to build a sufficient AI (can only apply logic) and see if it comes up with a concept for God on it's own. Nevertheless everyone does have the potential to peer review the same aspects of God. You can even apply logic and reasoning to it, if you have the ability.
2- The minute time of man is all anyone has to go off of for historical presuposition. The only reason you know the sun comes up is because it has for as long as man has recorded it. Anything before Man was around is assumed based of trends and statistics. Since God/ Gods have been around the time for the same time as the sun has in recorded histroy, how is it illogical to suppose it didn't exist before man? As far as ideology, as reason and science grow we are able to better make sense of our surroundings, which leads to a better grasp of the influences in our lives. The names of it have changed, the attributes of it have changed, the quantity of it has even changed, but "it" still is? savvy?
3- I think I've lost where you and Fr0d0 are so I think I'll continue to not get in the way.

(February 12, 2010 at 5:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To clean up my logic would mean first cleaning up yours.

The bullshit is spouting out now. You are even loosing your sense of identity in thinking that my logic is part of yours. Get help.

Should I assume by your omission you're conceeding the point or merely being rude? Void has internet access issues what's your excuse?

(February 13, 2010 at 5:56 am)tackattack Wrote: Should I assume by your omission you're conceeding the point or merely being rude? Void has internet access issues what's your excuse?

Rude to you I cannot be. You merely have to wait your turn. No matter how eager you are to have my reply, I'll be the one that chooses to reply on what and when. I don't believe I have neglected your responses so far.

---

(February 13, 2010 at 3:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- the inability to apply logic? come on no need to slash at tires. You could have just as easily said those with the ability to not use logic (which indeed does include you). Dodge through personal attacks much? You can choose to attempt an unbiased approach (or at least try both sides of an arguement), but you are obviously "inable" to.. I guess the true test would be to build a sufficient AI (can only apply logic) and see if it comes up with a concept for God on it's own. Nevertheless everyone does have the potential to peer review the same aspects of God. You can even apply logic and reasoning to it, if you have the ability.

Where is the argument you're making, if you're making any?

(February 13, 2010 at 3:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 2- The minute time of man is all anyone has to go off of for historical presuposition. The only reason you know the sun comes up is because it has for as long as man has recorded it. Anything before Man was around is assumed based of trends and statistics. Since God/ Gods have been around the time for the same time as the sun has in recorded histroy, how is it illogical to suppose it didn't exist before man? As far as ideology, as reason and science grow we are able to better make sense of our surroundings, which leads to a better grasp of the influences in our lives. The names of it have changed, the attributes of it have changed, the quantity of it has even changed, but "it" still is? savvy?
3- I think I've lost where you and Fr0d0 are so I think I'll continue to not get in the way.

The sun does not come up in a real sense. We're deluded into that idea because we're on a rotating sphere. And we have found out about it through empirical evidence and hard thinking. Not through sharing anecdotes of ancient tribes. Ancient tribes indeed professed the idea that the sun really 'comes up'.

So myths are debunked by evidence, whatever anecdotes people keep telling each other. Gods have only been around in fairy tales and myths not in evidence of any kind. And this fact alone shows that we should be critical in assuming knowledge from tribal authority. Because that is the fallacy you are making that god exists on tribal authority. So throw some bones and get to know your future.