excellent.

Gravity and Evolution are theories, and you don't see many people saying gravity doesn't exist.  

It also has something to do with a general misunderstanding of the way scientists establish causal relationships across great spans of time.  I think a lot of people just don't understand the sheer volume of corroborating evidence for many geological/biological theories.

I accept gravity exists.  This is not to say that I think Scientist have a complete understanding of it.

 I would say the same thing for evolution.

It's always nice to have someone agree.. even if the point is small.

I get kind of tired of being the odd man out on everything.

Heh.

Um.. just to clarify.. and perhaps play the devils advocate of some inidividual who says "evolution is just a theory".

Yes.. I agree they may be belittling the work involved in making a theory.. but I still believe them to be technically correct.

Science is a (let me be metaphorical for a moment) constant state of questioning.  Nothing is more than a theory or a law.  We do have things which science consider "fact" such as.. here is a rock, here is a fossil, here is a (fill in the blank).  Facts are limited to a definition of what is observed.

Fact: apple moves from point A to point B. ("Falls&quot.

Fact: (x) changes over (y) time.

In the case of evolution this would be:

(x): What we describe as genetic makeup changes over (a certain amount of time).

But more than just this statement of observable fact is included within the "theory of evolution"-- for instance.. why it changes, why certain qualities are favored over others, what implications this has, and so on.

 Granted.. this is only my understanding of the process.  Of course.. I was educated by teachers.. who knows what those people were feeding me!

I could be mis-knowledged.  

a-logic? Heh.

I'm not a-logical.. I'm very logical, or at least try to be.

On a particular point.. I did NOT say that God feels emotions differently then us (as you said I did)... I said he doesn't necessarily feel them the same way as we do.

This type of statement is meant to imply that I will debate the issue as if he does feel them the same way as we do, yet I leave open the option that the understanding may be imcomplete.

I have done this many times. People say God cannot feel X or Y.. I say yes he can.. this is how I reason he can. At the end of writing my position.. I always say.. "But, in anycase, I don't feel that he necessarily feels emotion in the same way we do. In the same way humans progect feelings onto other things.. so we progect feelings onto God. It might be accurate.. or might be just partially accurate."

It would seem that people always try to argue that God could not feel emotion because a.) emotion is a reaction and God is all knowing.

I address this two ways. First.. by questioning their definition.. because that is not the definition I know of. And secondly, I might ask them to show an instance in the bible of an emotion that explicitly states a reaction that requires non-knowledge.. such as "suprised" or "mistakened".

People like to use "reaction" as if it necessarily means a "action in response to something unexpected."

That is not the definition of "reaction."

Reaction: 3.) Action in response to some influence, event, etc.

People try to say "disappointed" or "grieved".. these might be emotions of reaction.. but not in the position the person wishes to argue from.  Mainly.. that "these are a emotions of reaction to something unexpected, and how can something be unexpected?"

People just try to make this argument more simple then it actually is.  A strawman argument if you will.  Have the theist accept that emotions are reactive by nature, and that reactive inherently implies non-expectation.

All emotions are not "reactions" in the sense that, I believe, you are defining it as.

Emotions are merely "spontaneously arrising mental states without cognitive thought." Now.. on the other hand.. if we cannot perceive God to be spontaneous.. or if, in fact, he cannot be spontaneous.. then this would imply that he is not omnipotent, or, that we have a seriously problem of perception. (theists I mean.)

On a sidenote: Yah.. good choice. Conversations should always come secondary to a girl. Heh.

Yeah, Susan. I gotta remember to use para-correct more often. A-logic is now in my vocabulary as well.

Rhad, even though I dismiss your arguments out of hand, I do think you're being honest and genuine, and I imagine we'd probably get along ok over a beer.

Nevertheless, your arguments have taken one of two forms, or a hybrid of the two, since you joined the board.

1) You've taken a somewhat unique stance on the "Defense by Redefinition" in which you admit to conflicting definitions, and then go ahead with using the definitions interchangably, the whole time using the caveat, "I could be wrong."

This is very clever, because it appears to be open minded, but it's really the exact same theist argument with a nice coat of varnish to make it look pretty.

The fact is, for definitions to be any good, they have to exist. For you to talk about how god experiences emotions, you either have to positively define "emotion" with respect to god (emphasis on positive... telling us what it is not is not defining it.) or use the existing definition. Instead, you just say, "Ok, it's not like the existing definition. It's like god's definition." Well, without god's definition, you might as well call it a three headed chia pet named Abner, because we're talking about nonsense.

Here's where your second flaw comes in.

2) When this is pointed out to you, you invariably switch to the "Uncertainty Defense" where you come back with your arms wide and say, "I never said those things you said I said, because I said I could be wrong, and was only arguing from one possible side." The thing is, rhad, you are a slippery eel in arguments. You'll argue one side until it is refuted, then you'll slip into the defense that without being one hundred percent certain of the rightness of the opposing position, it's still valid for you to argue your position, since it's possible.

The inherent error in this, of course, is that things that are equally possible are not equally likely. In fact, many things that are technically possible are so unlikely that we can say scientifically that they are impossible.

Ok... illustrations:

Ok, fine... Defense by uncertainty. So either define "god-emotion" positively or stop talking about the possibility that undefined things exist. We could be here for centuries talking about all the things we can't talk about that don't have any definitions.

So, let's be honest, rhad. All that boils down to "I don't know, and I don't have a workable definition." So, why are you arguing the point?

Ok. Here's an example of the slippery eel tactic:

The thing is, you're technically correct insofar as the dictionary definition of reaction. This, however, does not give your argument validity. By invoking the exact wording of the dictionary, you're trying to invalidate something that you and I and everyone else here knows... that emotions are reactionary. The dilemma still exists.

So, why is it that in the one case, you skirt around definitions, and in the other, you insist on attacking an argument based on a particular, precise definition, even though the argument is still valid, and just poorly worded?

Emotion:

1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.

Spontaneous:

coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.

I give you these definitions to show you that the argument is still valid, but it's not the point.

The point is that you use defintions from both sides of the fence to try to maintain an indefensible position.

If you're going to be a stickler for every single definition that atheists employ, what gives you the right to employ an argument using both soft and hard definitions?

The answer, rhad, is nothing. Your arguments are inconsistent and invalid, no matter how much you try to slip and slide around the objections.

I thought this was a valid response.  I would like to know that you at least understand me better Hammy.. or perhaps I still come off as the slippery eel.  In which case.. I apologize.

I read a post.. during my hiatus.. regarding someones belief.  I think it might of you speaking of your roommate? In anycase.. I found it fascinating.. and while I may not be completely in agreement.. perhaps I can learn something from him.

Perhaps this is all just academics.. in which case.. hm. 

Hey, rhad.

Glad to see you're still around.  Sorry for not responding directly to your last post.  While I try to directly address everybody who posts a response to me, I don't always get to, and sometimes I just kind of wander away from debates when they're obviously not getting anywhere.

As far as the specific points you raise, suffice it to say that you've made the same errors again, with a slightly different color varnish, and I doubt that a detailed response to them would change your mind, so unless pressed, I'm not going to do that.

The bottom line remains:  For any theist argument to "work" it has to use multiple definitions.  This is a logical fallacy. Defining illogic into logic simply is not a valid way of getting around it being a logical fallacy, either, and is yet another example of the same mistake.

I'm happy to be around as well.  Glad to see you're still around-- doing well I hope.

I'm afraid I must push. The purpose was merely to clarify myself.. not convince you of God, that God *does* feel emotion, etc. So.. with regards to my last post.. consider it under that sphere. How is the construct of belief irrational? This is not the same question as: How does this 'arguement' fails to be convincing?

Logical fallacies have to do with 'proving' something. Your question doesn't ask me to prove something.. only make a valid argument (valid being logical-- not its ability to convince you). As for the 'illogic' into 'logic'.. I can only assume that you mean I am trying to explain the 'illogical' 'logically'. For this.. I may conceed a bit, for 'God', being perceived now as 'supernatural'.. is inherently an irrational concept.

This does not mean I cannot hold the belief that this irrational concept has some sort beneficial application in my own life.

This belief does not make me, in and of itself, inherently irrational.. otherwise some mathematicians in their practice of calculus would be considered irrational as well.