I Love You Enough to Burn You

[fr0d0]

Do you read my posts? I've said right there why i don't believe you. Because you're basing your beliefs in one book. You are offering nothing other than this to prove your points.

No you've just said "no I don't" without actually GIVING any reasons. You are repeatedly accusing me of not giving reasons when I have, and then giving no reasons yourself.

<edit>
Sorry - you just gave a reason that "I'm using one book". Explain why this is objectionable to you.

[Ace Otana]

Understanding of logic isn't understanding if there is no such thing as logic.

Logic and imaginary friends are two very different things. I understand Santa perfectly well, this doesn't make him real! Same with your god.
Either he exists or he doesn't.

No it doesn't speak about materially creating the universe.

That's odd, I thought Christianity speaks of god creating the universe. Or is this just your frodo-christianity version?
If god didn't create the universe, something else must of.

You constantly state that you don't believe in God because of lack of evidence. List me at least one piece of evidence that you would find convincing, and we can check if that is illogical/ makes an extraordinary claim.

No frodo. I state why I don't believe/accept such claims. The burden is not on me.

So your understanding of biology leads you to theorise that reality should include life without death? I personally find that to be fantastic. Somewhere there one of us left the platform.

You then address a material fact: death, with a metaphysical proposition: life after death... again wanting to mix science with non science. An extraordinary leap. Once again... please justify your reasoning to make such an extraordinary claim.

What the hell are you talking about?

Ad Hominem. Where's your justification?

All the nonsense you've come out with in your posts.
None of it makes any sense.

[Napoléon]

Do you read my posts? I've said right there why i don't believe you. Because you're basing your beliefs in one book. You are offering nothing other than this to prove your points.

No you've just said "no I don't" without actually GIVING any reasons. You are repeatedly accusing me of not giving reasons when I have, and then giving no reasons yourself.

<edit>
Sorry - you just gave a reason that "I'm using one book". Explain why this is objectionable to you.

Because it has not been proven. Simple.

If the source you are using has no proof that anything it says correct, then you are making unjustifiable, and unreasoned claims.

[fr0d0]

Logic and imaginary friends are two very different things. I understand Santa perfectly well, this doesn't make him real! Same with your god.
Either he exists or he doesn't.

You're not addressing my belief Ace. I don't "imagine" anything. And belief is a rational process nothing to do with fantasy. Once more you're crossing the border happily between the physical and the metaphysical. How are you justifying that??

That's odd, I thought Christianity speaks of god creating the universe. Or is this just your frodo-christianity version?
If god didn't create the universe, something else must of.

The bible states that God ordered the universe. It states nothing about material creation, although Christians believe that God is the originator.
Material origins as investigated by science help us to understand the physical creation.

You constantly state that you don't believe in God because of lack of evidence. List me at least one piece of evidence that you would find convincing, and we can check if that is illogical/ makes an extraordinary claim.

No frodo. I state why I don't believe/accept such claims. The burden is not on me.

And your reasoning is to use an extraordinary claim which you refuse to back up. By your own standards you need to either change your reason or explain it. I have made no such claim to defend.

Ad Hominem. Where's your justification?

All the nonsense you've come out with in your posts.
None of it makes any sense.

Why? Just saying "you're wrong" without justification helps no one, and leads me to conclude that you have no valid objection.

---

you just gave a reason that "I'm using one book". Explain why this is objectionable to you.

Because it has not been proven. Simple.

If the source you are using has no proof that anything it says correct, then you are making unjustifiable, and unreasoned claims.

What hasn't been proven? The source is internally coherent and presents a solid logical platform. If you contend that then please lets have your reasoning to address.

[Ace Otana]

You're not addressing my belief Ace. I don't "imagine" anything. And belief is a rational process nothing to do with fantasy.

You do imagine god. I don't do belief, I go where the evidence points. If evidence does not point to a god, then I won't conclude that it's god.

Once more you're crossing the border happily between the physical and the metaphysical. How are you justifying that?

I'm a materialist. I don't believe in the metaphysical. I must first be convinced of it. Which I'm not. To me, there is only the material. From the atom, to the biological cell. All material, all connected.

The bible states that God ordered the universe.

Another unsupported belief I take it.

Material origins as investigated by science help us to understand the physical creation.

So god had nothing to do with the actual creation of the universe? He just shaped it?
Why call him 'creator'?

And your reasoning is to use an extraordinary claim which you refuse to back up. By your own standards you need to either change your reason or explain it. I have made no such claim to defend.

Last time, I've made no claim. Unless you can point it out....

Why? Just saying "you're wrong" without justification helps no one, and leads me to conclude that you have no valid objection

No. Yes I think you're completely wrong about everything, but that's not it. I think, Watson is dead wrong about everything he believes, but at least I can understand him and what he's saying. Most of the time, I haven't a clue on what you're talking about. Also, you're a Brit! I'm supposed to understand you more than anyone else.
----

You must excuse me for a few minutes, I'm having a little spat with a few websites. They like to say it's free to join but always fail to mention the payments needed after you fucking join. So I'm gonna give'em a piece of my mind.

[theVOID]

You're not addressing my belief Ace. I don't "imagine" anything. And belief is a rational process nothing to do with fantasy. Once more you're crossing the border happily between the physical and the metaphysical. How are you justifying that??

Something being a belief does not imply it was either arrived at rationally or irrationally.

A belief is not a process either, it is a proposition for which we act as if it is true when relevant.

The bible states that God ordered the universe. It states nothing about material creation, although Christians believe that God is the originator.
Material origins as investigated by science help us to understand the physical creation.

The bible states that God compiled the universe from existent materials? If that is the case we can right out of the gate give your brand of theism a low prior probability, you need both god and matter/energy to exist acausally, we only need the latter.

And your reasoning is to use an extraordinary claim which you refuse to back up. By your own standards you need to either change your reason or explain it. I have made no such claim to defend.

*Sigh*

If he were to be pedantic and claim "I know of no sufficient evidence" would you stop playing word games?

We both agree nature exists (I should hope), you are the one proposing supernature, as such you have the burden of proof.

Why? Just saying "you're wrong" without justification helps no one, and leads me to conclude that you have no valid objection.

Gota say he got you there Ace

If the source you are using has no proof that anything it says correct, then you are making unjustifiable, and unreasoned claims.

Uhhhhh, the book says some true stuff, that's pretty easy to confirm... Maybe get a bit more specific in your objections, otherwise you make it too easy for him to rightly dismiss you.

What hasn't been proven? The source is internally coherent and presents a solid logical platform. If you contend that then please lets have your reasoning to address.

Now come on fr0d0, you don't believe that the bible is entirely coherent or consistent.

And what is this 'logical platform' you have derived from it?

[fr0d0]

Once more you're crossing the border happily between the physical and the metaphysical. How are you justifying that?

I'm a materialist. I don't believe in the metaphysical. I must first be convinced of it. Which I'm not. To me, there is only the material. From the atom, to the biological cell. All material, all connected.

It's not your materialist viewpoint that I have a problem with Ace, it's the fallacious reasoning to dismiss the metaphysical using the lack of physical evidence.

The bible states that God ordered the universe.

Another unsupported belief I take it.

No. A fully supported belief. Oh wait... you were talking about material evidence of the immaterial again right?

Material origins as investigated by science help us to understand the physical creation.

So god had nothing to do with the actual creation of the universe? He just shaped it?
Why call him 'creator'?

Because he created it. The bible doesn't explain how though.

And your reasoning is to use an extraordinary claim which you refuse to back up. By your own standards you need to either change your reason or explain it. I have made no such claim to defend.

Last time, I've made no claim. Unless you can point it out....

See above. You say it so much I'm wondering if you have it tattooed on your forehead!

Why? Just saying "you're wrong" without justification helps no one, and leads me to conclude that you have no valid objection

No. Yes I think you're completely wrong about everything, but that's not it. I think, Watson is dead wrong about everything he believes, but at least I can understand him and what he's saying. Most of the time, I haven't a clue on what you're talking about. Also, you're a Brit! I'm supposed to understand you more than anyone else.

We've had some productive convo's in the past as I recall. It's ok to say you don't know. Most of us object when someone says we're wrong but can't say why.

You must excuse me for a few minutes, I'm having a little spat with a few websites. They like to say it's free to join but always fail to mention the payments needed after you fucking join. So I'm gonna give'em a piece of my mind.

Go get em Ace! I'll play the fiddle

[theVOID]

I'm a materialist. I don't believe in the metaphysical. I must first be convinced of it. Which I'm not. To me, there is only the material. From the atom, to the biological cell. All material, all connected.

Err, you probably shouldn't equate metaphysics with supernaturalism... Naturalism is a metaphysical position.

[Ace Otana]

*Places arm on Frodo's shoulder* Ok, you me, man to man, Brit to Brit....you think we should just go get ourselves a drink? Because this discussion feels like endless trek of ocean.
After all, I've got bastards to moan at.

Go get em Ace! I'll play the fiddle

Already on it. Managed to delete my accounts over there. Filtered them from my email too. Not done moaning though.
Oh and the sites I'm having trouble with are sex dating sites.
Already had one 47 year old women message me. Told her I was interested in meeting up for some...fun.

-------
Back to finish where I left off.

it's the fallacious reasoning to dismiss the metaphysical using the lack of physical evidence.

Anything claim on the immaterial will be dismissed without hesitation. Since there is no way to verify it.

No. A fully supported belief. Oh wait... you were talking about material evidence of the immaterial again right?

If it's based entirely on the immaterial, then yep. It's unsupported and rightly dismissed. Case closed.

Because he created it. The bible doesn't explain how though.

Contradiction! You said he didn't create the material universe, but mearly shapped it. Now you say he created it. He either did or didn't.
Which is it?
Plus, shapping or creating, if it was true, there should be evidence of it. Also it's contradicting what you said earlier, "religion makes no claim of the universe".
But if god shapped or created it then yes, you've made a claim about the universe.
Two contradictions already.

It's ok to say you don't know

I often admit to not knowing. I don't know where all this came from, but I won't claim to not know about religion if I'm sure that I know a thing or two about it.

[fr0d0]

Something being a belief does not imply it was either arrived at rationally or irrationally.

Does an irrational belief nevertheless use rationality?

A belief is not a process either, it is a proposition for which we act as if it is true when relevant.

No disagreement there, although I fail to see the relevance.

The bible states that God compiled the universe from existent materials?

Not quite VOID. The description of functionality forms the framework within which God operates.... metaphysically & not physically. It's very clear.

If he were to be pedantic and claim "I know of no sufficient evidence" would you stop playing word games?

How would that change his claim?

We both agree nature exists (I should hope), you are the one proposing supernature, as such you have the burden of proof.

Stop backing up the diversion tactics VOID!
Let us address how Ace presumes to establish the non existence of supernature using nature. He makes the claim... let's see it defended or abandoned.

What hasn't been proven? The source is internally coherent and presents a solid logical platform. If you contend that then please lets have your reasoning to address.

Now come on fr0d0, you don't believe that the bible is entirely coherent or consistent.
[/quote]
Yeah I do. I don't know everything but from what I do know that has proven to be true, so I feel confident in asserting it.

And what is this 'logical platform' you have derived from it?

My Christian faith.

---

Naturalism is a metaphysical position.

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