(April 27, 2014 at 7:41 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(April 27, 2014 at 3:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: NO SUPERNATURAL ENTITY CAN POSSIBLY HAVE NATURAL EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE.

BECAUSE SUPERNATURAL = NONEXISTENT.

Believing in things that have no evidence is pretty stupid, isn't it?

It's almost as stupid as thinking defining something as "having no possible evidence" wins you arguments.

So is that the sum of your defence then rumpy?

See pokie, at this point I assume that the point is good and that rumpy has no challenge to the logic. Am I right? Can I claim one more victory for reason?

(April 27, 2014 at 8:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So is that the sum of your defence then rumpy?

See pokie, at this point I assume that the point is good and that rumpy has no challenge to the logic. Am I right? Can I claim one more victory for reason?

I have nothing to defend. You're the one making a knowledge claim.

Keep at it with the childish sniveling, shows it's all you have to defend your belief in Santa.

(April 27, 2014 at 8:09 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 27, 2014 at 8:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So is that the sum of your defence then rumpy?

See pokie, at this point I assume that the point is good and that rumpy has no challenge to the logic. Am I right? Can I claim one more victory for reason?

I have nothing to defend. You're the one making a knowledge claim.

Keep at it with the childish sniveling, shows it's all you have to defend your belief in Santa.

Don't lie, frodo is clearly right, there is a strict doctrine of atheism we all follow

(April 27, 2014 at 8:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So is that the sum of your defence then rumpy?

See pokie, at this point I assume that the point is good and that rumpy has no challenge to the logic. Am I right? Can I claim one more victory for reason?

Which logic?
I still haven't seen anything from you...

(April 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 27, 2014 at 8:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So is that the sum of your defence then rumpy?

See pokie, at this point I assume that the point is good and that rumpy has no challenge to the logic. Am I right? Can I claim one more victory for reason?

Which logic?
I still haven't seen anything from you...

Frodo's definition of logic:
1. Claim to have logic
2. Throw a tantrum when asked to present it
3. Claim you've already presented it
4. Repeat step 1

If you reject, even in principle, possible natural evidence of the supernatural then you reject all of natural theology.

Hey, did Frodo ever provide the reason he can dismiss other supernatural beings without evidence?

Still no?

(April 27, 2014 at 7:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 27, 2014 at 7:41 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: BECAUSE SUPERNATURAL = NONEXISTENT NATURALLY

Fixed that for you ;)

Yeah, because that makes a difference... Not.

The reason supernatural shit has no evidence is because there can't be evidence for falsehoods. You seem to believe in a magical world for no reason whatsoever. You're aware that such delusions are a symptom of various very serious mental illnesses, yes?

Please, go to your GP and tell him or her that you believe in a magical invisible world that is entirely undetectable, but you know it's there because you have special magic powers that other people don't have; and in this magical invisible world is a super intelligent magical being with the power to create all of actual reality, but astonishingly, not the power to create lifeforms without ridiculous flaws, like a tendency to randomly choke on its own saliva for no reason.
Enjoy your Risperidone dreams!

(April 27, 2014 at 8:23 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: If you reject, even in principle, possible natural evidence of the supernatural then you reject all of natural theology.

For the record, this means:

Quote:1.
theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.

So according to Frodo's special pleading definition of supernatural flying toasters, the bogeyman, purple people eaters, and other imaginary deities exist, but cannot be proven. The majority of the OT and the NT must be discarded as impossible by definition.

God cannot exist outside of the imaginations of believers, and could not have created any part of the natural world, or the universe, because God does not, by definition, leave evidence of God's existence.

God is a supernatural concept indistinguishable from the imaginary, of which no natural evidence is possible.

As opposed to presumably more powerful entities like unicorns and leprechauns, who are capable of leaving evidence of their presence in the natural world, God is impotent and imaginary by definition.

God is, by Frodo's definition, is the invisible, intangible 2nd pull tab on cans of soda and printer toner cartridges he believes exists but cannot be disproven, who leave no impression in the material world whatever.

God is the additional second law to Occam's Razor that causes no noticeable change to any conclusion.

God is completely imaginary and impotent. You cannot prove an impotent imaginary God does not exist; therefore Frodo's God exists, and yet he has no good reason his God should exist, other than that other intangible supernatural beings do not exist, but his intangible supernatural God does exist.

Therefore, unicorns, leprechauns, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Oni, and Ghosts exist, because there is no evidence they do or do not exist.

Absence of evidence in Frodo's mind = conclusion of existence, but only for those supernatural entities he has concluded exist.

Ta-Dah. Frodo's mental illness is therefore evidence that Frodo's god exists, lacking any empirical evidence, because Frodo believes god exists, and Frodo's beliefs matter more than anyone else's. Because Frodo believes.

Ta Dah!