[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by Nicato

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.

I'm not trying to. Using reason and reducing something to our naturalistic observational capacities are two different things.

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."

But you're splitting hairs here. It's semantics. As far as you're concerned, it might as well not exist since it can't be verified within the boundaries of the naturalistic axiom to which you blindly adhere.

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).

Nor is your absence of God interpreted from anything but a blind and dogmatic clinging to the naturalistic axiom, a mere assumption underlying the entire foundation of your entire argument. Philosophy will always bring with it a degree of subjective perspective. That's why it's philosophy. Philosophy and science cannot exist independently. You're blind to the fact that your perspective is a mere interpretive understanding of what you know – a subjective philosophy.

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 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.

It's a rather poorly constructed satirical device; you're using it out of context, and using it ineffectively. I'm no stranger to the IPU, the Problem of Evil, the parable of the stone, or any of the other hackneyed atheistic maxims posturing as proofs against God. You still haven't given any kind of example of how the IPU can be substituted for God without simply trying to ascribe qualities to God. We can see things in this world which we may logically argue can be interpreted as being evident of design and purpose. Saying something such as, "the IPU may as well have been the creator" is just ascribing a quality to God – God is still defined as the Creator, even if He is an invisible pink unicorn who farted the universe into existence.

Further, you seem to be confusing "logically" with "definitively". Our very existence defies the imagination of science (if there is such a thing), much less its capacity for observational data. There is much more we can ascertain within the boundaries of reason through a melding of philosophy and science, rather than a blind and dogmatic adherence to science alone.