What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Statler Waldorf]

Still doesn't apply because I don't "believe" any of those things. Quit stalling.

You don't believe in laws of logic? Then why do your actions contradict this? You are trying to have a logical conversation with me.

[Napoléon]

You don't believe in laws of logic? Then why do your actions contradict this? You are trying to have a logical conversation with me.

Really? I should change that.

YOU IS A DUFUS HERRRR DERRRRRRRR.

[Statler Waldorf]

You don't believe in laws of logic? Then why do your actions contradict this? You are trying to have a logical conversation with me.

Really? I should change that.

YOU IS A DUFUS HERRRR DERRRRRRRR.

Ok, maybe you are right, maybe you really don't believe in logic.

---

Really? I should change that.

YOU IS A DUFUS HERRRR DERRRRRRRR.

So about these unicorns, are we talking about a physical creature in nature or something supernatural?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry, back, had to go "play dad". No Statler, you didn't hit a nerve. I just wanted to make sure you understood how little respect I have for a person who's sole barb in an insult is that their opponent is a father. We all have obligations, some of us don't bitch about them when we fail to make a compelling point to our fellows and end up taking a few cheap shots in the humor dept.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sorry, back, had to go "play dad". No Statler, you didn't hit a nerve. I just wanted to make sure you understood how little respect I have for a person who's sole barb in an insult is that their opponent is a father. We all have obligations, some of us don't bitch about them when we fail to make a compelling point to our fellows and end up taking a few cheap shots in the humor dept.

My barb was that you are a troll who happens to be a dad, not that you are a dad. Being a dad just affords you more time to play your role as a troll. Nothing wrong with being a father, I am quite fond of my own.

[edk]

How is spending all day trolling around on a forum "trying to be a good dad"? Yeah, you probably shouldn't try and fight his battles for him.

You seriously are accusing me of ad Hominem? This is meant to be funny coming from you right? If so...then kudos.

I am still waiting for my answer to the question, “why do you not believe in God even though you have admitted believing in things that do not have proof or scientific evidence?”

When have I ever attempted to discredit your arguments by calling you a moron? The fact that I insult you routinely doesn't detract from my other points.

> “why do you not believe in God even though you have admitted believing in things that do not have proof or scientific evidence?”
I haven't. Please list a few things I've said I believe in that don't have proof or scientific evidence. Keep it short, I don't want to spend my life replying to your stupid trolling, but I will explain why I feel any particular things that you list are more believable than God and/or the Bible.

Bear in mind that by your logic, we should also distrust our own eyes and ears, so I'll be making certain assumptions. For example, that the chance of a global conspiracy to trick blind people into believing in light is negligible.

Incidentally, I believe you mentioned "destroying the possibility of a naturalistic world". I'm still waiting to hear that.

[Statler Waldorf]

When have I ever attempted to discredit your arguments by calling you a moron? The fact that I insult you routinely doesn't detract from my other points.

Actually in debate ad Hominem does detract from your other points.

I haven't. Please list a few things I've said I believe in that don't have proof or scientific evidence. Keep it short, I don't want to spend my life replying to your stupid trolling, but I will explain why I feel any particular things that you list are more believable than God and/or the Bible.

Oh good, so you should given a logical proof or convincing scientific evidence for the following, because I know you believe them...

Laws of logic exist
Your senses are generally reliable
The things you remember really did happen
Scientific laws that exist today will still exist tomorrow

The list goes on, but you wanted it kept short.

Bear in mind that by your logic, we should also distrust our own eyes and ears, so I'll be making certain assumptions. For example, that the chance of a global conspiracy to trick blind people into believing in light is negligible.

No, I trust my own senses, but that's because I have a Biblical basis to do so. You do not have any foundation for trusting yours. I see you completely missed my point about light and the blind.

Incidentally, I believe you mentioned "destroying the possibility of a naturalistic world". I'm still waiting to hear that.

The fact that you have to borrow from my worldview everyday is destroying it quite nicely.

[The Grand Nudger]

You should spend any time you've set aside for insulting me on something more productive. Something like producing a single scrap of evidence for your claims. No one missed any point you've attempted to make Stat. When you decide to mimic your demi-god and "explain" something through parables the message falls flat. This is largely due to the fact that you're a terrible storyteller, but it doesn't help that you seem to have lost your hold on reality.

[edk]

Actually in debate ad Hominem does detract from your other points.

I make legitimate points against your arguments which you routinely ignore in favour of complaining about my language towards you. The fact that I call you a moron in the same post as pointing out a flaw in your logic does not make your logic less flawed.

Oh good, so you should given a logical proof or convincing scientific evidence for the following, because I know you believe them...

Laws of logic exist
Your senses are generally reliable
The things you remember really did happen
Scientific laws that exist today will still exist tomorrow

The list goes on, but you wanted it kept short.

Sigh.

• The laws of logic are independent of the universe, its physical properties, and its purpose or reason for creation. It is impossible to find scientific evidence for or against logic because it's as conceptual as, say, the number 2. Nothing about the universe can change the fact that 2 = 2.
  
• It's not so much that I believe this implicitly as that I don't see the point in trying to live in any other world but the one my senses tell me I am in. I derive my pain, hope, fear, sadness, whatever from my senses, ignoring them can't change that, so why would I? My senses are as real as I am.
  
• Actually, I do believe the human memory is not infallible, so I won't refute this point.
  
• I make no assumptions about scientific laws other than that they describe the way the world works. If the world suddenly starts working in a different way tomorrow, I will revise which laws of science I believe to be accurate.
  

No, I trust my own senses, but that's because I have a Biblical basis to do so. You do not have any foundation for trusting yours. I see you completely missed my point about light and the blind.

You read the Bible with your senses. If your senses were fallible, the only reason you believe them to be infallible would not exist. I detect circular reasoning.

The fact that you have to borrow from my worldview everyday is destroying it quite nicely.

I do? Please explain. I don't know what your world view is other than logic and reason don't figure in it - how could I borrow from it?

[Statler Waldorf]

You should spend any time you've set aside for insulting me on something more productive. Something like producing a single scrap of evidence for your claims. No one missed any point you've attempted to make Stat. When you decide to mimic your demi-god and "explain" something through parables the message falls flat. This is largely due to the fact that you're a terrible storyteller, but it doesn't help that you seem to have lost your hold on reality.

Telling someone not to waste their time insulting you and then proceeding to insult that person? More of the inconsistency I have grown to love from you Rhythm, it really is part of your charm It was not a parable, it was an analogy, and you proved it a valid one. You produced no logical way to prove to a blind person light exists. The exact same is true of you, there is no logical way for me to prove to you God exists, the proof is obvious to believers such as myself, but that's because our blindness was cured a long time ago. So you have been effectively reduced to the blind man who doesn’t believe in light because there just isn’t any “proof” of its existence. However, I even took it one step further, I demonstrated that you do believe in things you do not have proof of, so you are now the incredibly inconsistent blind man demanding more proof.

---

The laws of logic are independent of the universe, its physical properties, and its purpose or reason for creation. It is impossible to find scientific evidence for or against logic because it's as conceptual as, say, the number 2. Nothing about the universe can change the fact that 2 = 2.

Oh my, we actually agree on something? Although when you say things like the laws of logic are independent of the universe you are not sounding like much of a naturalist. Do you have proof they exist though?

It's not so much that I believe this implicitly as that I don't see the point in trying to live in any other world but the one my senses tell me I am in. I derive my pain, hope, fear, sadness, whatever from my senses, ignoring them can't change that, so why would I? My senses are as real as I am.

So you admit there is a good chance that your senses are not reliable and you are experiencing a reality that is not actually real?

Actually, I do believe the human memory is not infallible, so I won't refute this point.

I didn’t say infallible, I said reliable. There is no way to prove our memories are reliable, even though we all live like we believe it is true.

I make no assumptions about scientific laws other than that they describe the way the world works. If the world suddenly starts working in a different way tomorrow, I will revise which laws of science I believe to be accurate.

If you actually believed this though you could not learn or know anything because the principle of induction would have no foundation. I have a feeling that you do not jump off of tall buildings because you assume the law of gravity works the same today as it did yesterday and will work the same tomorrow as it did today. There is no way to logically prove this to be true, even though everyone lives like they believe it is true.

You read the Bible with your senses. If your senses were fallible, the only reason you believe them to be infallible would not exist. I detect circular reasoning.

Not a true circular argument, although it has a circular nature to it, I will grant you that. I can use what I have read in the Bible as a new primary axiom to provide a foundation for my initial presuppositions. Everyone has to engage in somewhat of a circular argument sooner or later. It’s not an invalid argument it just can’t be used to prove anything to anyone else.

I do? Please explain. I don't know what your world view is other than logic and reason don't figure in it - how could I borrow from it?

Actually logic and reason are very much a part of it. In fact, in an atheistic universe you’d have no reason to even believe in logic, much less use it. So by doing this, you are acting in a manner that assumes we do not live in an atheistic universe, that there are laws of logic that transcend time and nature and we should use them to discern truth. There is a Biblical basis for that belief, there has never been a naturalistic one.
Interesting discussion though, at least we have gotten to actually discussing something. So kudos.