Hello.....I have a little problem

[IATIA]

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.

I may be a 'brain-in-a-vat'. Nothing that I perceive is anything more than my imagination or all that 'exists' is only a construct of my awareness.

So, what is 'real'? I do not know! What is 'truth'? I do not know.

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.

A 'definiton' does not make something real. There are definitions of fairies, goblins, werewolves and vampires. Are these real?

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.

I do not suppose that something is or is not supposed to be here, only that if it is here, then it is real, it exists.

but if it exists, then it is natural.

According to whom?

Obviously not to you. If your god was real, would that not be the most natural thing of all?

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.

Definition of EXIST:
ex·ist verb \ig-ˈzist\

intransitive verb
1
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>
b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
2
: to continue to be <racism still exists in society>
3
a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen>
b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day>

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.

And I am not, therefore "We do not agree". 'We" have not established that 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.

Not necessarily so. Context is all important.

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.

It is a question of authority. Proof is always fleeting (and authority changes, ergo 2000 year old proofs or authorities are just that). One could not 'prove' the heavens are anything more than a hologram.

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 think not. May perhaps you disagree (which is fine), but they are rational. They do contradict the bible of course, but as stated, the bible lacks authority.

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.

Definition of SOUND
sound adj \ˈsau̇nd\
1
a : free from injury or disease
b : free from flaw, defect, or decay
2
: solid, firm; also : stable
3
a : free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension <sound reasoning>
b : exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience <sound scholarship>
c : legally valid <a sound title>
d : logically valid and having true premises
e : agreeing with accepted views : orthodox
4
a : thorough
b : deep and undisturbed <a sound sleep>
c : hard, severe <a sound whipping>
5
: showing good judgment or sense <sound advice>

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.

The fact that you incorporate the bible into your beliefs does invalidate your position on the existance of god. Throw the bible away, burn it, trash it, whatever, but get rid of it, out of your mind, then determine if god does exist. (Little voices in your head will not count)

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?

That was a reference to another poster that stated christians numbered to 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?

Of course they are relative. Take a world that you create where all is good and there is no evil or bad of any sort. Unless everybody is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL, there will still be different levels of morality.

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.

How did the horses, deer and babies sin?