I Love You Enough to Burn You

[fr0d0]

Does an irrational belief nevertheless use rationality?

Ahhhh, example?

A=B except I didn't know about C which proved E

"And belief is a rational process nothing to do with fantasy"

Ah. Belief is a result of a rational process.

You mean supernaturally? It doesn't seem like you're using the word 'metaphysically' correctly.

Genesis 1 explains how the world is ordered with God at the centre. It's an account of functional beginnings of a metaphysical reality (the ancient world didn't separate physical and spiritual).

And can you explain further what you mean by "The description of functionality forms the framework within which God operates"?

The days of creation is the setting out of function aiming towards the conclusion with God at the centre.

How would that change his claim?

Saying "There is no evidence" is a positive claim about reality, that there exists no evidence at all of the existence of god.

Saying "I don't know of any evidence" is a statement of fact about the mental states of the person in question.

The former is Gnostic Atheism, the latter is Agnostic Atheism.

So it doesn't change his claim?

I do not think Ace takes the positive position that "supernature does not exist", he takes the position that he knows of no good reason to believe it does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet he continually asserts that there should be physical proof of the metaphysical. that just won't fly.

There are tons of things that are either plain false, inconsistent or nonsense in the bible.

None that I'm aware of. Those childish misinterpretations don't qualify ...forgive me for not researching and finding out the information for you there, most of it has been covered successfully with you in the past, I see no point in wasting further time on it now.

Logical in what sense?

Logical in that it works rationally in understanding purpose. My motivations are guided by it based on a sound understanding of it, everything fitting in to the base conclusions perfectly.

So why does your sig qualify 'naturalism' with 'metaphysical'?

To make the distinction between the positions of metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism for one...

So naturalism isn't just metaphysical?