Hello.....I have a little problem

[Statler Waldorf]

If I can touch it, feel it, see it, taste it, hear it or reasonably deduce it, I will consider it. 'Consider' is a key word.

So if touching it, deducing it, etc, and etc are only enough for you to consider something then what is your ultimate standard for discerning truth since apparently those are not your ultimate standard you use to discern truth.

Those are your words. Mine are: All that exists is natural. Simple as that. Whether or not we know of it or we are aware of it, it is natural.

Seems like you are redefining supernatural as something that cannot exist, I see that nowhere in the actual definition of supernatural.

There is nothing here that is not supposed to be. If something that is not supposed to be here exists, then it must be a part of existence and therefore must be natural and supposed to be here. NOT CIRCULAR.

Sure that statement is not necessarily circular but it is arbitrary which is even worse. How do you determine whether something is ‘supposed’ to be here or not? That implies purpose and design.

but if it exists, then it is natural.

According to whom?

Your god is supernatural, therefore it does not exist.

You have redefined the word “exist” to serve your argument, that’s a big no no.

I ain't got no mouse in my pocket!

Then who is “we”? I am quite alright with scripture being used as an ultimate authority.

Again, your words, not mine.

I was reducing your argument to absurdity by applying it to someone other than yourself and showing how you would not accept their position even though they are using your same form argumentation.

First, I never used the word rational. Secondly, I am referring to my own worldview, ergo "with my worldview".

I know you were referring to your own worldview, but If you are not going to allow someone else to use your same form of reasoning to present a position you don’t agree with then you should not be using that form of reasoning either. Fair is fair, there is no special pleading allowed.

If we (still no mouse) want to consider rational, then I am rational and you are irrational.

Not according to the arguments you have presented so far, they have been quite…well…irrational.

I am rational, because I am using sound logic, sound reasoning, and sound science to base my opinions on. Note, 'opinion' is another 'key' word.

I have not seen any sound logic used by you thus far. Science does not deal in the area of soundness, that’s a matter of deduction, science uses induction.

You, however, are irrational. Why? (Well I do not really know but...) You are basing your worldview on fairy tales written thousands of years ago. Not only that, but your have selectively accepted and declined various documents with no thought as to their validity except that a bunch of religious freaks in 400 some A.D. picked them for you and said "god wrote these.".

Nice mischaracterization of my position. I presuppose scripture’s infallibility thus making it my ultimate standard of truth. I then reason from this ultimate standard to other conclusions. This methodology is very rational I assure you. Since you have not even identified what your ultimate standard is the jury is still out whether you are completely rational or not.

It sure is going to be crowded with 2 billion people in there. That is the best god could do. Man, this guy is a wuss.

Where do you get the number 2 billion?

Absolutely, (Damn, another absolute). Morals are relative to the world, society, government, life form, species, dimension, universe, whatever. Nature will cull on it's own.

You know this how?

So, babies pissed off your god? Horses pissed off your god? Deer pissed off your god? Damn! It does not take much to piss off that dude, does it?

Sin is a serious thing, so I would say it takes a lot.