Atheism is just as irrational as Theism.

[Captain Scarlet]

A bag full of fallacies there. What about the many conversations we've had where I did actually convincingly dismiss your many propositioons? I guess you've reduced this to insults and have given up trying.

A response as rational as theism itself. I cant remember a single occasion where you have refuted anything, other than inserting a wiki link to something obscure which you presumabley find convincing. Whenever you have attempted to make an argument it has been weak. You also need to learn the difference between an insult and someone pointing out your weak arguments. The ultimate irony is whenever that is done you are the one the resorts to insults.

I don't at all believe that magic and mysticism can be rational.

Yet you believe that a man was also a god, that there was a creator who wished the universe into existence via an incantation, that the man-god healed people suffering from possession, that water turns to wine, that a few thousand folks can be fed off a fish and a loaf, the prayers might be answered, that miracles occur, that people rise from the dead, that the truth comes from introspection and within. Or maybe you don't really believe any of these things, but where does that leave your xtianity?

And I know atheists can be many things. What I'm discussing here specifically is the materialist perspective, as that is the only opposition that I see presented.

You weren't actually I directly quoted what you specifically said. You raised materialism later. Your argument, such as I am able to comprehend it, is that there is 'function' in the universe, and that whilst we cannot detect a god (because materialism is the current paradigm) that doesn't mean there isn't a way to know god or know that god exists. The analogy you go on to give is a business.

There are several problems here. First is your definition of function, ie you have not defined it. What functions are you referring too exactly that give strong evidence of the divine? Your argument cant take off unless you can point to something. The universe is as it is, it is subject to entity based causal law which means that things operate with accordance with their own identity. Secondly your analogy of a business really doesn't work. You do not seem to have a decent theory of concepts in your epistemology, such that you invoke the term 'business' as though the business really exists. A business is a conceptual integration of many things, including assets, paperwork, people (tangible things), alongside passion, drive, goodwill, loyalty (intangible things). But you cannot then go on to claim that the conceptual thing (in this case a business) 'exists', it only does so in our conscious mind. It has no separate physical instantiation in the universe and it is a floating abstraction fallacy to assert otherwise. There do appear to be other issues with stolen concept fallacies and category errors, but you have not formulated a proper argument to adequately conclude on these.

You say I've proved diddly squat, which is nice. But you have no reasoning to support that. So we are forced to disregard your statement.

I think you'll find I did provide an argument if you check back through the posts. And I have pointed out above why I don't think you have provided one. At least one that we can get our teeth into.