and if arguments on the internet are formal

anglachhehlel has the burden of proof of saying why faith, in a supernatural [I]vernacular [/I] cannot be the absence of logic like I claim

come on brent it basically boils down to people having a discussion and then you jump in and make some ridiculous claim that you've twisted meanings around to make and when people call you out on it you either revert to more twisting or claim logic as a basis.

what the fuck does that even mean


you want me to prove that your retarded definition of logic doesnt belong to the vernacular?
cant prove a negative dipshit

also whats so supernatural about 'vernacular'


also burden of proof is on you
you made the claim

this "supernatural" vernacular is a human construct, but it is a rigid construct
t
and lol, burden of proof

how are my claims twisted, you guys are rofl

[QUOTE]also burden of proof is on you
you made the claim[/QUOTE]

it shifted onto you after you made the claim that it is not valid

and i supported it with a definition
of course, it never left you anyways
since you did not support your claim

it doesnt suddenly leave you when someone tells you 'no'

[QUOTE=adb;18304839]how are my claims twisted, you guys are rofl[/QUOTE]

you essentially said definitions are arbitrary

[i]everything is subjective!*~[/i]

oh wow, another fucking retarded argument with brent

[QUOTE]and i supported it with a definition
of course, it never left you anyways
since you did not support your claim

[/QUOTE]

I don't see this definition of yours

and yeah, I did. But if you want me to say it again I will. Even if I do you'll be an annoying ratface troll but here goes:

Anything in the natural world can be explained with science

Nothing in the supernatural world can be explained with science

Faith in a deity cannot be explained with science

Logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference"

Therefore, faith is the absence of logic WHEN REFERRING TO THE SUPERNATUAL

the way I'm structuring this probably makes it unsound or something but I don't care enough

the point is I gave my argument and you said it wasn't valid. You have the burden of proof now

watch me get banned for it

[QUOTE]you essentially said definitions are arbitrary[/QUOTE]

no I didn't, I said they are open to debate

not this again

fuck yall ama listen to chiodos and creep 17 year old girls on fb

[QUOTE=adb;18304853]I don't see this definition of yours

and yeah, I did. But if you want me to say it again I will. Even if I do you'll be an annoying ratface troll but here goes:

Anything in the natural world can be explained with science

Nothing in the supernatural world can be explained with science

Faith in a deity cannot be explained with science

Logic is "he science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference"

Therefore, faith is the absence of logic WHEN REFERRING TO THE SUPERNATUAL

the way I'm structuring this probably makes it unsound or something but I don't care enough

the point is I gave my argument and you said it wasn't valid. You have the burden of proof now[/QUOTE]

what the fuck are you going on about?
you said definitions are arbitrary when that is obviously not true. A definition for a new utterance is arbitrary but after it is set it is not arbitrary.

[QUOTE=adb;18304853]I don't see this definition of yours

and yeah, I did. But if you want me to say it again I will. Even if I do you'll be an annoying ratface troll but here goes:

Anything in the natural world can be explained with science

Nothing in the supernatural world can be explained with science

Faith in a deity cannot be explained with science

Logic is "he science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference"

Therefore, faith is the absence of logic WHEN REFERRING TO THE SUPERNATUAL

the way I'm structuring this probably makes it unsound or something but I don't care enough

the point is I gave my argument and you said it wasn't valid. You have the burden of proof now[/QUOTE]

are you seriously trying to tell me that human behaviour cant be explained through science yet you were waving some "superior" knowledge of psychology around days ago
holding faith in something is a part of human behaviour

i gave my definition originally but fine ill give it again
faith: # complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"


also

>Anything in the natural world can be explained with science

prove it

this is a perfect example when I say definitions are open to debate

what are we doing right now

faith can have some logical foundation in the natural world, however, it cannot in a supernatural world, where deities exist

if you want to argue deities aren't supernatural thats cool because when I made the claim it was implied I was talking about christians, which believe god dwells in heaven, ie a supernatural realm
[QUOTE]you said definitions are arbitrary when that is obviously not true[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]definitions are open to debate

[/QUOTE]

nice strawman

by "open to debate" you are implying that a group of people can decide to change the meaning of a word, and its meaning is therefore arbitrary.

I hate saying implying this much :\

they can change the meaning of the word in a certain context or [I]vernacular [/I]

of course they are not arbitrary I would never argue that

[QUOTE=adb;18304862]
nice strawman[/QUOTE]

inc ban

for godssake, you guys are proving my point about how definitions are open to debate RIGHT NOW

how fucking obvious of a statement can I possibly make by saying definitions are debatable

they have diffferent meanings by different people, of course within reason though

[QUOTE=adb;18304862]this is a perfect example when I say definitions are open to debate

what are we doing right now

faith can have some logical foundation in the natural world, however, it cannot in a supernatural world, where deities exist

if you want to argue deities aren't supernatural thats cool because when I made the claim it was implied I was talking about christians, which believe god dwells in heaven, ie a supernatural realm




nice strawman[/QUOTE]

i dont care about deities and shit
you've told me why you have faith in logic
its still just faith
its no better than christianity
it doesnt explain anything its just observance
saying something is because you observed it and you know it is because well, you observed it
you're smart enough to know what that is

[QUOTE][/QUOTE][QUOTE]i dont care about deities and shit
[/QUOTE]

cool

[QUOTE]you've told me why you have faith in logic[/QUOTE]

ok

[QUOTE]its still just faith
[/QUOTE]

based on your definition

[QUOTE]its no better than christianity
[/QUOTE]

natural world > supernatural world, again, debatable

[QUOTE]it doesnt explain anything its just observance
[/QUOTE]

which you can't do in a supernatural world, but can in a natural world

[QUOTE]saying something is because you observed it and you know it is because well, you observed it
[/QUOTE]

yeah

[QUOTE]you're smart enough to know what that is[/QUOTE]

yeah

[QUOTE=adb;18304875]cool



ok



based on your definition



natural world > supernatural world, again, debatable



which you can't do in a supernatural world, but can in a natural world



yeah



yeah[/QUOTE]

so whats the difference between the supernatural world and the natural world

[QUOTE]>Anything in the natural world can be explained with science

prove it[/QUOTE]

scientific method

[QUOTE]so whats the difference between the supernatural world and the natural world[/QUOTE]

scientific method

re: definitions

coming from a guy who fucking studies language

definitions are only arbitrary in that a group of people decide upon their meaning. language involves multiple parties who agree upon the meaning of the words they use. as people start to use words in new ways, then they slowly begin to agree on a new definition of that word.

adb coming up with new definitions of words to suit his arguments does not follow under this, sorry. you're just making shit up.

who is that dirty hippy?

[QUOTE=adb;18304879]scientific method



scientific method[/QUOTE]

scientific method = observation

i just observed satan rise from my floor and tell me hes killed god and we were all wrong

what now

adb, there are still things that science has yet to explain. yet you claim that the scientific method can explain EVERYTHING in the natural world. however, currently this is not the case.

is it not true that you have faith that the scientific method can explain everything?

fuck lennon