[q]or that what is being used as for foundation doesn't QUALIFY as such
"unfounded" in the case of of definition 2 was synonmous with "groundless"/"baseless" in terms of evidence and logic[/q]
By your definition of what would qualify.
[q]no i don't - because i can provide rational support[/q]
You can disprove God? A concept residing
outside the observable universe? I doubt that.
[q]No, it takes the position "that which you do not have evidence/logical support for cannot be considered logical"
it's not coincidental that I take that position.[/q]
Based upon your definition of what would be applicable as evidence. See below.....
[q]Then we agree and why are you arguing?
There is no evidence for the existance of $DIETY therefore believing in $DIETY is baseless (unfounded) and therefore can be considered being delusional.
[/q]
There is no evidence supporting the absence, either. There is no evidence
full stop either way. That was the whole point. That you're using an incomplete manipulated statement of 'logic' to try and prove your opinion only emphasises the absence and impossibility of a definitive answer.
[q]then it fails to be grounded in the meaning used for definition 2 of Delusional[/q]
Only by your interpretation.
But I digress. I should have said religion was not based upon 'the absense or presence of observable universe evidence to define a non-observable entity'.
[q]no, you need to attack the misuse of the word foundation and the faulty attempt to say "it's founded on belief" to satisfy the requirement to be rationally founded upon evidence and logic as implied by the term "unfounded"[/q]
So you admit it's a misuse of foundation? You have, I hope, noted that the definition you gave of unfounded doesn't actually cover the enterity of the boldened definition in my post in any case. There is no explicit statement that foundation requires observable evidence as a basis, just a basis.
[q]YOU DON'T and that is the entire point
If you don't have evidence for something you cannot rationally believe in it - if you EVENTUALLY find evidence for it then you can rationally believe in it.[/q]
So how can you say the observable universe rules out God based on your set of logical 'rules'?
[q]
continue to presume that i'm trying to act like a know it all - be my guest. I'll simply add you to ignore if you keep falsely attributing crap like that to me.[/q]
See below.
Kazan, 2500 years of philosophy has not definitively established anything's existence! It is a bloody hard question. You're just spouting off these parameters and saying, "There! Problem solved!" But you don't even have to dig into a university library to find how mind-boggling this problem is. You could probably just type "existence" in frigging Wikipedia and you'd see that your answers are nowhere near as definitive as you think they are.
I don't care how difficult some people find the problem, I find it somewhat simple. I do find language somewhat limiting in how to express the idea.
let's start with the easier of the two to define
Non-existance: Anything that doesn't interact (cannot be observed by any means) with our universe doesn't exist
Existance: anything that can/does cause/receive an interaction
the only difficulty here is to define the "polarity".
[q]yes because bold+red "hey look at this!" translates to "you're a ****ing idiot"
totally. undeniably.[/q]
So you're resulting to childish insults now because you feel defensive? Did you do that in debate class?
[q]no they're not claiming it exists outside the physical world becuase they're claiming it interacts with the physical world - which automatically makes it part of the physical world
they're merely contradicting themselves in an attempt to trick[/q]
Does it? Have you now defined the rules by which the non-observable universe works all by yourself? It would strike me - a doubter - that the basic concept is of an unobservable cause to observable actions. But in any case, I've already had this debate with Goober, and I'd suggest you look back down the thread to gain the perspective of someone who believes in it.
[q]
No, logic is not altering physical reality - it's altering our understanding of physical reality[/q]
How do we know physical reality is unchanged if our perception of it has altered in the process of logic? the base arguement is, I think, that 'reality' is defined by how we observe and that, insofar as the human mind and human perception goes, logic changes that reality as we apply it to ourselves.
EDIT; you reported it? What next, are you going to take your ball and go home?
