Hello.....I have a little problem

[Statler Waldorf]

Those are your words. Mine are: All that exists is
A 'definiton' does not make something real. There are definitions of fairies, goblins, werewolves and vampires. Are these real?

You didn’t follow what I was saying. Redefining a term to try and prove it does not exist is logically fallacious. You have incorrectly defined naturalism as all that exists and defined the supernatural as non-existent which does nothing to prove whether or not the supernatural exists or not. I could redefine atheism to mean “A person who does not exist who also does not believe in God or gods”, but that in no way proves atheists do not exist now right?

There is nothing here that is not supposed to be. If
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 you used the term “supposed to be here”, so now you are backing away from that? How do you know whether something is “here” or not? I smell circularity…again.

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

Nope, nature is a product of God’s creation, not God Himself.

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>

That definition right there would apply to God since he is a spirit. So I guess you argument crumbles.

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

Nor will we, you stick to your axioms I will stick to mine.

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.

I do not share your low view on logical proof.

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.

Then you have no basis for calling me irrational, since my arguments do not contradict scripture which is my stated ultimate authority. So we are both behaving in a manner consistent with our worldview and primary axioms so we are both being rational.

Definition of SOUND

You should still avoid using that word when dealing with science, soundness when used in argumentation is only applied to deductive arguments. “Solid science” would be a far more appropriate term.

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)

Nope, it would be special pleading to allow you to stick to your anti-biblical presuppositions while making me abandon my pro-biblical presuppositions. I will not engage in special pleading with you, that my friend would be irrational of me to do. Stick to your guns, I will stick to mine.

That was a reference to another poster that stated christians numbered to 2 billion.

Oh, I see.

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.

Not if everyone only desired to make completely moral decisions.

How did the horses, deer and babies sin?

They were affected by the fall (death and disease), but they do not have souls so they are not punished in the afterlife for man’s sin.