Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[Mavorpen]

Right, so you present us with an object that is magical and then refuse to accept it's magical properties? The fuck?

So you think me saying the spoon also exists ''outside'' the universe. Makes it a valid possibility?

Yes. I don't see any reason why not. Is it PROBABLE? Not really.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So you think me saying the spoon also exists ''outside'' the universe. Makes it a valid possibility?

Yes. I don't see any reason why not. Is it PROBABLE? Not really.

So anything I claim to exist that is ''magical'' and ''beyond logic'' is valid?

[Mavorpen]

Yes. I don't see any reason why not. Is it PROBABLE? Not really.

So anything I call ''magical'' and beyond logic is valid?

Could you ask me questions that aren't intentionally loaded?

[Shaggai]

Yes. I don't see any reason why not. Is it PROBABLE? Not really.

So anything I claim to exist that is ''magical'' and beyond logic is valid?

It is valid. The probability of it is so low as to effectively be zero. But still technically valid.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So anything I call ''magical'' and beyond logic is valid?

Could you ask me questions that aren't intentionally loaded?

What do you mean? This is the argument I'm dealing with right now, apparently.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So anything I claim to exist that is ''magical'' and beyond logic is valid?

It is valid. The probability of it is so low as to effectively be zero. But still technically valid.

How? How is that not special pleading? If I could claim magical exemption from logic, with any made-up object, and it's valid without proof.

[Mavorpen]

Could you ask me questions that aren't intentionally loaded?

What do you mean? This is the argument I'm dealing with right now, apparently.

No. A spoon being outside of the universe isn't the same as being "magical."

[Neo Rome Republic]

What do you mean? This is the argument I'm dealing with right now, apparently.

No. A spoon being outside of the universe isn't the same as being "magical."

But it's not bound by the natural laws or logic? So it's ''magical''.

[Mavorpen]

But it's not bound to the natural laws?

What the fuck? According to who?

[Neo Rome Republic]

But it's not bound to the natural laws?

What the fuck? According to who?

That's what I've been told about God because ''he's outside of the universe''. So no logical argument against him applies, apparently.

[Mavorpen]

What the fuck? According to who?

That's what I've been told about God because ''he's outside of the universe''.

That means he isn't bound to the laws of this universe. That says nothing about other possible universes, which is why that isn't the argument. The argument isn't that he's magical because he's outside of the universe, it's that he's magical because he supersedes everything, even other possible universes.

[Neo Rome Republic]

That's what I've been told about God because ''he's outside of the universe''.

That means he isn't bound to the laws of this universe. That says nothing about other possible universes, which is why that isn't the argument. The argument isn't that he's magical because he's outside of the universe, it's that he's magical because he supersedes everything, even other possible universes.

Isn't that special pleading though? Why should I accept such an argument as valid without evidence?

[Mavorpen]

That means he isn't bound to the laws of this universe. That says nothing about other possible universes, which is why that isn't the argument. The argument isn't that he's magical because he's outside of the universe, it's that he's magical because he supersedes everything, even other possible universes.

Isn't that special pleading though? Why should I accept such an argument as valid without evidence?

Who said you should...?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Isn't that special pleading though? Why should I accept such an argument as valid without evidence?

Who said you should...?

Well if you look back at my argument, that's what I'm told, apparently. Like I've said, God based on the evidence is an illogical answer, and to accept his exemption without evidence, is fallacious reasoning.

[Mavorpen]

Who said you should...?

Well if you look back at my argument, that's what I'm told, apparently. Like I've said, God based on the evidence is an illogical answer, and to accept his exemption without evidence, is fallacious reasoning.

Who's "he"?

[The Grey Wolf]

So anything I claim to exist that is ''magical'' and beyond logic is valid?

It is valid. The probability of it is so low as to effectively be zero. But still technically valid.

So I was right?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Well if you look back at my argument, that's what I'm told, apparently. Like I've said, God based on the evidence is an illogical answer, and to accept his exemption without evidence, is fallacious reasoning.

Who's "he"?

Do you mean who said, I should give God special exemption?

[Grave_n_idle]

The universe being eternal was a separate hypothetical, which I still say would disprove God if it were true.

It wouldn't.

My actual argument about such a timeless being unable to create our universe and therefore even if he did exist, would not be our creator still stands.

Still? It hasn't made it to it's feet yet.

[Mavorpen]

Who's "he"?

Do you mean who said, I should give God special exemption?

Yes.

[Caltarania]

I'm an atheist because there is no rational evidence for the existence for a deity.

^This.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Do you mean who said, I should give God special exemption?

Yes.

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid. Even though I point out, they have no evidence for God and are using fallacious reasoning(special pleading). Until they have a good justification, why I should give God special exemption, I ain't going to.

[Mavorpen]

Yes.

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid. Even though I point out, they have no evidence for God and are using fallacious reasoning(special pleading).

No idea about Blasveck, but Grave? No, that's nonsense.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid. Even though I point out, they have no evidence for God and are using fallacious reasoning(special pleading).

No idea about Blasveck, but Grave? No, that's nonsense.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=255796&start=4200

He says it in this page. Apparently if someone claims something is magical without evidence, all logic flies out the window. That object gets special exemption.

[Mavorpen]

No idea about Blasveck, but Grave? No, that's nonsense.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=255796&start=4200

He says it in this page.

I read that page.

Not a single post says anything close to what you claimed he said.

[Blasveck]

Yes.

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid. Even though I point out, they have no evidence for God and are using fallacious reasoning(special pleading). Until they have a good justification, why I should give God special exemption, I ain't going to.

All Grave and I were saying was that you kept trying to apply the laws of the universe to God, when there is no way that you can do that, because a God exists outside of our universe.

Not once did neither of us claim that God was exempt from logic.

Stop misrepresenting us.

It's simply ignorant.