View Single Post
Old 02-27-2007, 09:41 PM   #69
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Mike Doolittle (Post #68):
You're still ignoring the main point: that it's a question of interpretation of what we know. The difference between God and the invisible pink unicorn is that we logically infer the existence of God when we interpret the world as designed, created and purposeful, which is based upon what we can observably know. What we begin to define as God's characteristics is the result of said interpretations, but it's a theological interpretive perspective, not a falsifiable naturalistic claim.
In otherwords, after making sweet love with logic and eventually birthing this beautiful baby, you've attain sole custody of the child, got a restraining order against logic and won't return it's phonecalls. You can't do that. If your god can be logically inferred then it can be logically scrutinized. You simply cannot have it both ways; either it is logical or it is not.

Your denial of God amounts to saying that since you can't observe God within the boundaries of your existential bubble, God must not exist.
Again, that is not my position. Your god may exist and it may not, I am only saying that there is reason to actively believe in it (and by definition unreasonable), not that it necessarily "must not exist."

You ignore that many aspects of our universe may be logically interpreted to be signs of the existence of God.
No, I don't, because your god is not logically interpreted from anything except your own premises (which is why they call your arguments circular). What I do is ignore things which cannot be logically demonstrated, like your god and the proverbial unicorn.

I can only tell you how I interpret what I see. Likewise, you can only tell me how you interpret what you see.
Yes, but I can also scruntize the process by which you've came to your interpretation. Lest anybody's interpretation is equally true (in which case, we could "logically infer" the invisble pink unicorn).

The IPU is a non sequitur.
No it is not. It is an effective satarical device which is often deployed to ridicule a concept which, at once, demands all the respect of a logical idea yet none of the burden.

Last edited by Nicato; 02-27-2007 at 10:56 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote