####At any rate, trusting in Jesus Christ and his finished work of redemption is the means of salvation

Brandon,

####At any rate, trusting in Jesus Christ and his finished work of redemption is the means of salvation.####

So if someone does not trust in Jesus, in other words, if someone does not have the opinion that Jesus is real, then that person goes to hell, correct?

#### I am talking about laws in general and by using that analogy, I exposed your erroroneous tactic of appealing to special circumstances as a basis for showing a law to be flawed. A person working at a hospital on Saturday makes the sabbath law no more flawed than would a man speeding his laboring wife to the hospital make "speed limit" laws flawed.####

The problem is this: These are not laws made by fallible humans. You called these laws “God’s perfect moral laws” and claimed that disobeying these perfect laws earned a person a one way ticket to hell. Therefore, it would seem to be of utmost importance to understand how to live one’s life without disobeying these laws. The first one of these laws is to worship the Christian god and the Christian god alone. Therefore, if someone does not have the opinion that the Christian god is real and therefore does not worship it, that person would go to hell, correct? Similarly, if someone was forced to work each and every Saturday for a lifetime to support his or her children, this person would be violating one of these “perfect” laws and would be eternally tortured, correct? Clearly this would be a transgression against “God’s perfect moral laws.”

#### There is nothing "unclear" about the 10 commandments####

I beg to differ.

YOU: Worship false gods; self-deception is good!

How does one determine which of the thousands of gods is the correct god in order to worship it and avoid eternal torture?

YOU: Make idolatrous images of those false gods to be worshipped

How does one determine which are true and which are false gods? That is the question. No one makes idolatrous images of gods they believe to be false.

YOU: You should blasphemously curse the name of the true God; show blatant disrespect to your Creator.

How does one determine the correct god to show respect to? If one simply lacks belief in the one true god, does this qualify as disrespect?

YOU: You should work 7 days without resting,

If someone works seven days because he or she needs to feed a family, does he deserve eternal torture? Yes or no?

YOU: Curse your mother and father; do not honor them,

If they were abusive, I would argue that this would be the proper way to treat them.

YOU: You should murder other people; life should not be respected,

The Bible provides numerous examples of murder sanctioned by “God”:

"Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Hosea 13:16

"The men of Judah captured another ten thousand (men) alive and took them to the top of the rock and threw them down from the top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces."

2 Chronicles 25:12

"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5

"Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you.”

Jeremiah 50:21

"Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 6:21

"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."

Deuteronomy 2:33

"And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall...Then you shall know that I am the Lord."

Christian god-Ezekiel 35:8

YOU: You should commit adultery; cheat on your wife and break her heart while destroying your family unit in the process so your children can grow up in broken homes.

Family values, according to the OT:

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses-Numbers 31:17

"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem...”

2 Samuel 5:13

"...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."

Christian god-2 Samuel 12:11

YOU: You should steal; take whatever you want especially if it belongs to someone else,

The Bible certainly condones this:

"Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."

Christian god-Zechariah 14:1

"The men of Judah carried away very much booty. And they smote all the cities round about Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was upon them. They plundered all the cities, for there was much plunder in them. And they smote the tents of those who had cattle, and carried away sheep in abundance and camels. Then they returned to Jerusalem."

2 Chronicles 14:13

YOU: You should give false testimony; lie as much as you can to as many people as you can,

Just as “God” did?

"The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

I Kings 22:23

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

II Thessalonians 2:11

YOU: You should covet; covet you neighbors wife, his house, his belongings and everything he

has. Long after it, lust after it, and then go and take it because stealing is good.

This commandment is not against stealing, just against coveting. I still do not know how one is able to master one’s inner thoughts and feelings to the extent of overcoming wants and desires.

YOU: (see commandment 8!)

As I made clear, the Bible condones stealing.

#### I already exposed your erroroneous tactic of appealing to special circumstances as a basis for showing a law to be flawed. ####

But no one claims that human laws are perfect, or that violating them requires and deserves eternal torture, as you have claimed is true with the Ten Commandments. So you need to clarify yourself. Does the violation of “God’s” laws require eternal torture or is it possible to violate these “perfect” laws and not go to hell? A clear answer is requested.

#### Actually, there is plenty of legal evidence to show that God most probably exists.####

I am still waiting to see what it is.

#### I think you are confused about which "case" I'm making. At this particular juncture, my case is that the "supernatural" exists. Therefore, if there is a significant consensus within human experience of the supernatural, certain truths can be deduced. ####

1) You still cannot say what the supernatural actually IS.

2) Appealing to he popularity of a belief is fallacious, despite your various efforts to talk your way around it.

3) You do not accept any other supernatural claims apart from those found within Christianity. Therefore your appeal to other people’s supernatural beliefs is disingenuous and hypocritical. I will not accept a blanket appeal to a belief in the supernatural as supportive of one very sectarian supernatural belief. Since this point doesn’t seem to be getting across for some reason, I will ask you to tell me whether several of the other supernatural beliefs besides Christianity are true or false:

Islam: True or false?

Hinduism: True or false?

Mormonism: True or false?

Scientology: True or false?

Mithraism: True or false?

If all of these supernatural beliefs are false, then it is invalid to appeal to them to support a belief in the supernatural in

general. If this point is still unclear to you, do not hesitate to ask for clarification.

#### Furthermore, there *is* consensus within Christianity concerning the fundamental tenants of the historic Christian faith, contrary to your claim. The differences fall within fine points of doctrine.####

I agree that there is some consensus within Christianity. However, the fact remains that there are hundreds or thousands of different sects, many with exclusive means of salvation, that have been have been warring for centuries. Within these groups there are then liberals and fundamentalists that argue and fight. You would have thought that “God” would have done a better job of explaining itself.

#### People's personal testimony of their lives and experiences *does* constitute legal evidence.####

HOW does a person’s “personal testimony” and “experience” constitute “legal evidence” of “God”? Would you accept the “personal testimony” and “experiences” of Muslims as “legal evidence” of Allah? Would you similarly accept the personal testimony and experiences of Scientologists as “legal evidence” of Thetans? If not, then your appeal is hypocritical.

#### You are now confusing the notion of "demonstrating" an eyewitness account? ####

What I meant was this: if someone claimed to witness a car accident, we could establish that that person actually did witness the accident prior to accepting his or her testimony about the accident. However, if someone claimed to see Vishnu floating above his head, and blamed Vishnu for some crime, this could not be presented as “legal evidence” in a court case. Supernatural claims do not qualify as legal evidence. I am sorry if I was unclear in what I was trying to get across.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: You think that most people are mistaken about the supernatural anyway, so you are being hypocritical by appealing to their beliefs.

YOU: No, you keep confusing my arguments for supernaturalism with other arguments I've made in support of Christianity. They are separate arguments.

As a Christian, you reject each, every and all supernatural beliefs EXCEPT for Christianity. So, at the end of the day, ultimately, you are being hypocritical for appealing to ALL supernatural beliefs to somehow argue for Christianity. In any case, EVEN IF everyone on the planet believed in supernatural realms and gods, this would not mean that ANY supernatural realm or god actually existed. Understand? No matter how you phrase it, appealing to popular belief is a fallacy. I will reiterate also that this is not a legal case, these people are not eyewitnesses, and, again, even if they qualified as eyewitnesses the majority of them would contradict your version of events.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####Therefore, if theism has had great testimonial popularity throughout human history, it is most likely because theism is grounded in some type of experiential consensus, and therefore, more likely true than false.#####

No, a belief in the supernatural could simply be the result of ignorance. Indeed, you believe that most people are wrong about the supernatural.

#### The neutrality of your sources is utterly shocking! ####

Well of course I am going to quote people who support my position. I don’t understand what your point is.

####"Above, Beyond, Transcendent" are terms that describe supernatural and they are *not* negations or "opposites" as you suggest. ####

Those are NOT the words I was responding to, though. You specifically called the supernatural timeless and immaterial, and in response I described those words as negations, which they are. If I described “Above, Beyond, and Transcendent” as negations, it is only because they appear to make the supernatural something other than natural. In any case, if you say that the supernatural is "Above, Beyond, Transcendent" to the natural universe, what, exactly, do you mean by this? How is the supernatural above the natural universe? There is no up or down in space, is there? If I say there is a cloud above a mountain, this makes some sort of sense. If you say that the supernatural realm is above the natural universe, does the supernatural have the same spatial relation to the natural universe as the cloud to the mountain? Similarly, when you say that the supernatural universe is beyond the natural universe, does this mean that it is beyond the edges of the known universe, beyond the scope of our senses and our scientific instruments? Earlier you said that supernatural coexists with the natural universe. Could you clarify things a little better? How does the supernatural universe “transcend” the natural universe and also coexist with it? I am not following you.

#### God is also defined as a creator, a person, a free will agent, volitional being, love, holy, just, moral agent, etc. All of these attributes pertain to the context of man's knowledge and therefore, George Smith's conclusion above can rightly be dismissed as false and laid to rest. ####

These words do not tell us what “GOD” actually is, however. They are simply non-specific terms that you are applying to some nebulous, indefinite thing. Let’s say that I proposed that a “UNIE” exists. You asked me what this thing was. I said that it was a creator, a person, a free will agent, a volitional being, love, holy, just, a moral agent, etc. You still wouldn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about. A creator could be anything. It could be Allah or Vishnu, a bird making a nest, aliens on planet Beldar, atmospheric conditions and water droplets forming snowflakes, etc. A person? This could be anybody. Describing something, as love does not tell us what this thing is, since love is a feeling and emotion associated with the brains of human beings. It doesn’t make sense to call an entity “love.” Stating that “God” is a volitional being or a moral agent does not narrow things down any either. These words could apply to every person on the planet. Using the word holy is circular, since holy is defined as “belonging to or derived from or associated with a divine power.” Claiming that “God” is “just” does not tell us what “God” is, anymore than it would tell us what a “UNIE” is. I consider myself “just.” Am I “God”?

I need to know what God is made out of, what it looks like, perhaps what color it is so that if I bump into this thing I can identify it and know what I am dealing with.

#### We don't know for sure, but certain mathematical models derive evidence from false vacuums that show a "block-universe" dimension of time may exist.####

Do YOU think that time can exist in a complete vacuum? If so, how would you know?

#### No, what is in question here is your claim that the entire universe and all reality is exclusively of a material order.####

All I am saying is that, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, reality only consists of discrete bits of matter that interact in fairly well understood ways. I don’t claim to be omniscient, but I don’t see any evidence that there is anything more to it than this. We both agree that the natural universe exists. You are the one making the positive claim, that something more than this exists. Therefore you have the burden of evidence.

#### Not to mention the fact that "what we know" is an infinitesimally insignificant percentage of all knowledge that is available. #####

This is the argument from ignorance. It is fallacious. We don’t know that there aren’t intergalactic 900-foot tall purple polka-dotted space monkeys, but our ignorance about these enormous simians does not form an argument for such entities. I hope this is clear to you. If you need further clarification, let me know.

####Therefore, if your rejection of supernaturalism is based on what you "think" we know today, then your rejection of supernaturalism is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.####

We only know of this universe. We do not know of a supernatural realm. A supernatural realm is a hypothesis of religious people. Arguing for this realm by appealing to ignorance is fallacious.

#### but it does make your sweeping denials look foolish####

Please describe my “sweeping denials.” I am not sure what you are talking about.

#### You are claiming that something cannot be a "thing" unless it is physical, material, and natural.####

You are asserting the positive, you are asserting that something exists, so it is up to you to demonstrate how it “exists.” To do this you have to explain what it is, what is made out of, etc. If you fail to do this, nobody has any reason to listen to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Do planets and stars require a designer? Do living things like humans, bacteria and tapeworms need a designer?

YOU: Yes, all of creation either directly or indirectly suggests intelligent design.

I disagree. Stars form as the result of gravity and nuclear fusion, and planets clump together because of gravity. Humans and other living things appear to have arisen naturally, forming from basic chemical processes and molecular interactions, then replicating, diversifying and becoming more specialized though biological evolution. There is no evidence that any of this was the result of some kind of intelligent design.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Furthermore, on what basis do you claim that the production of snowflakes, humans, stars, and planets are non-random?####

When I say that they these entities came about though non-random processes, what I mean is that the physical processes involved are not random but fairly well understood and predictable. If I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. That is not random, but the result of natural, predictable, understood physical forces. Hopefully this is clear to you.

#### The reality of a metaphysical universe does necessarily exclude it from *all* laws, but simply the physical laws that are unique to our time-space continuum. ####

How do you know? Have you ever been to the metaphysical universe? How did you acquire this amazing insight?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU: Furthermore, the only way a discussion of metaphysics or supernaturalism would "leave the realm of rational discussion" is only if you first prove that "rational discussion" is exclusive reserved to materialism.

ME: Begging the question, appealing to ignorance, shifting the burden of proof.

YOU: No, you are evading the challenge, brushing off the inherent burden, and eluding yet another opportunity to support your case.

You have got it backwards. You keep asking me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm. You seem to be forgetting that it is not the material universe that is being argued about, but your claim that some sort of supernatural realm exists and that it possesses all these bizarre magical properties you keep ascribing to it. I am rather surprised that you don’t understand who has the burden of proof in this argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU: Besides, I am not stating that the supernatural dimension is a separate "universe" from our physical one. I am simply saying that the two co-exist.

ME: HOW do they “co-exist”?

YOU: I don't *specifically* know whether or not there even *is* a "how" to their relationship so I can't answer your question and wonder about it's basis. This inability on my part isn't a problem since there are many things about the universe that we *don't know* but have good reason to believe, such as the resident internal singularities within black holes, the big bang event, dark matter, false vacuum particle pairs, etc.

But you claimed that they coexist, so presumably you know how they coexist otherwise you would not have claimed that they coexisted in the first place, correct? Please clarify your response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### No, 3-D tunnel vision is defined as a person who demonstrates a complete inability to conceptualize the possibilities and considerations of the extra-dimensionality of our universe. Whether or not my claims appear "unsupported and incoherent" is *precisely* the point in contention and *precisely* what you have failed to demonstrate. ####

I defined tunnel vision in a tongue-in-cheek way. I am sorry if the sarcasm was unclear. In any case, the different dimensions of the natural universe that are proposed by physicists, and Superstring theory, do not support this supernatural realm you keep referring to. These theories are based on the natural universe.

#### I would agree with that definition and submit that your materialistic claims do not fall into the category of "knowledge", but speculation; not systematic study, but competing hypotheses; not organized general principles, but scattered assumptions based only on currently existent principles.####

Care to be more specific? What “materialistic claims” are you referring to? Remember that you are the one who asked me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm using science. As should be clear, this simply is not possible since you have not explained what this supernatural realm is or how it could possibly be subjected to scientific study.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: You asked me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm by using science.

YOU: When did I ever ask this?

You initially claimed that complexity requires a designer. When I pointed out that if this was the case, then “God” would require a designer, you replied with this:

####No, none of that is necessarily required because you are falsely meshing the natural laws of causation into the metaphysical realm and trying subjugate it to the same limitations. What scientific basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same causal limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.####

You asked me to use science to “disprove” that this supernatural realm you keep referring operates outside “causal limitations.” In other words, you asked me to “disprove” your hypothesis that this supernatural realm operates on what for what all intents and purposes is magic. This is begging the question. In any case you already understood that this was a fool’s errand, because earlier you wrote this:

####The age-old error of atheism is that it falsely requires *scientific* evidence for a "metaphysical claim". The notion of God is a metaphysical notion. To require physical or scientific proof for a claim that is, by definition, - *metaphysical*, is about as absurd as someone demanding metaphysical proof for something that is proposed to be physical.####

So you are just playing word games here. You are arguing in circles. Again, to be clear, you are the one proposing this magical realm so you are the one who is required to demonstrate that it exists and that it possesses these Alice-in Wonderland properties you ascribe to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####The same thing is true for naturalistic Origin theories - they are not science as any honest observer could see. They are the study of distant-past events that are neither directly observable, repeatable, or testable, and therefore incapable of conclusive verification. ####

We can see the RESULTS of distant past events, and we can deduce what happened based on our observations of natural laws and biological processes, such as biochemistry, which is directly observable, and evolution, which is also directly observable. We can use this knowledge to make predictions, and test our predictions by, for example, studying what type of plants and animals are found in different sediment layers.

By the way, here is a more detailed definition of science, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Science: any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

####That's like asking if the colors "blue, yellow, and red" having any meaning apart from the light spectrum. It sounds like you are trying to make a case that certain things cannot have exclusive attributes.####

So are “timelessness” and “immateriality” exclusive attributes of “God’? If these qualities are exclusive to “God” then they cannot be used to define God since they have no conceptual basis apart from God.

#### Your argument here only begs the question what the definition of "nothingness" is. Obviously, we'd have to agree on what the definition of a "thing" is before we could ever agree to what the definition of a "no-thing" (nothingness) is. Again, it appears that you are attaching an exclusively materialistic definition to "thing". If so, then your entire argument is circular.####

You are the one who says that some sort of living “thing” “exists” that is immaterial. Therefore, you have the responsibility of telling me WHAT this thing is made out of. You keep trying to switch the argument around, but this ploy just isn’t going to work. You cannot argue from ignorance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: What is “personhood”?

YOU: The quality or state of being a person.

So is “God” a human being? If not, what does it mean to be a person but not a human?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Does “God” have creativity, love, volition, and freedom in the same way that humans have creativity, love, volition, and freedom? If so, how is “God” distinguishable from human beings?

YOU: Yes, according to most theologies. Those attributes may not be exactly the same as humans or in exist in the same capacities, but it is certainly comparable.

How are they comparable? How can “God” be distinguished from human beings?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####The attributes I have ascribed are hypotheses of God and have come as the result of two lines of support - 1) The study of the inherent nature, structure, and order of the universe and physical laws; and 2) The Bible, which possesses evidence of divine revelation.####

I do not see intelligent design in the universe or in the physical laws. I really don’t understand why you think that the properties of atoms and molecules had to have been decreed by “God” and then need to somehow be controlled by ”God.” The Bible appears to simply be the creation of fallible human beings living in a particularly unscientific and superstitious era of human history. Please go here for more information:

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/responses2c.htm#Since

#### I never challenged you to "prove" otherwise. Rather, I simply asked you to support your dogmatic assertion that naturalistic laws of causation MUST apply to the supernatural in the same way they apply to the natural. (Remember? Designer has to be designed?)####

I am afraid that you still do not understand the problem. You are asserting the existence of this supernatural realm and its bizarre properties. Therefore you are the one who has the responsibility of demonstrating that the logic you used to argue for your “God” (complexity requires a designer) does NOT apply to your supernatural realm. I am sorry if you cannot understand this basic tenet of rational argumentation.

Furthermore, if this supernatural realm is capable of producing “God,” why could it not also create the universe itself and leave out the middleman? If God was uncreated, then why can’t the universe be uncreated?

#### However, the numerous attributes of incorporeality that Supersting theory espouses causes the proposition of a "supernatural" realm to far more plausible than ever.#####

Does Superstring theory specifically propose that there is something beyond matter and energy? If so, could you be more specific about what it proposes, and how it support supernaturalism?

#### God is a supernatural, intelligent being that exists independently of the physical universe. ####

The term “supernatural” is still a problem. “Exists independently of the physical universe” appears to be another way of saying “God” is immaterial, which would be a negation.

#### The evidence found within the universe shows that the universe requires a cause that was independent of the effect it was producing (the universe). ####

This isn’t an argument for an intelligent creator.

#### God created the universe out of free will and volition as evidenced by much unnecessary creative design found in the universe. ####

What “unnecessary creative design” are you referring to, specifically?

#### The evidence found in the universe shows that the universe was most likely caused by an uncaused cause.####

What is an uncaused cause, and what is the evidence for it specifically? Have you ever seen an uncaused cause? Could a virtual particle qualify as an uncaused cause? If not, why not?

#### Therefore, God was this First Cause of all successive causes.####

Why can’t the universe be the result of a quantum vacuum fluctuation, something which has been observed?

#### Since the Big Bang is the theory of cosmological origins that is supported by the most evidence, the Big Bang was most likely the event that resulted from God's first-cause action. ####

The Big Bang theory does not say anything about a creator. Many scientists believe it was caused by a virtual particle.

#### This is further supported by the fact that there is no blind, unguided mechanism in the universe that has been observed to produce the numerous finely-tuned balances that exist in the universe-which is exactly what theism predicts. ####

Again: Stars, planets, and living organisms appear to have arisen simply through the operation of unguided but natural forces and processes.

#### It is therefore most likely that God not only caused the first cause, but governed and conserved many of the universe-creating events that produced these calibrated balances.####

The premises are not supported so the conclusion does not follow.

#### Nothing you've said has refuted the basic claim of my argument - that the testimony of 100 witnesses is stronger than the testimony of ONE witness. The only way out of this if you somehow want to muster up the gall to claim that people cannot be the witnesses to their OWN lives and experiences!####

But these are not WITNESSESS to an accident, but people professing faith or ascribing events in their lives to supernatural entities. Even if they were considered legal witnesses, the vast majority of these “witnesses” do not accept your version of events-most people are not Christians. You would disallow their testimony! This “argument” is just silly.

####If a Pentium computer and the human brain hold numerous fundamental, design-attributes in common, it is most likely that they *both* were intelligently designed.####

Pentium computers and human brains are not analogous and therefore they cannot be compared analogously. Human brains are organs attached to biological organisms. These organisms reproduce and populations of these organisms are subject to evolution over time. Pentium computers are clearly the result of a manufacturing process, while human brains are clearly the result of biological evolution. You are comparing apples and oranges.

#### Furthermore, you have only stated that stars, planets, and living organisms have appeared through natural process - but have not supported this.####

Read up on gravity, fusion and evolution. I am not your science teacher.

#### As I have already stated, intelligent design is the summation of complexity, integration, structure, balance, and purposeful function. The universe and biological life is positively teeming with such attributes.#####

These are pretty general terms. I mean a puddle of water has structure, integration, balance and purposeful function. A snowflake is complex, but it is not designed. If you apply these terms to stars, planets, and living organisms, I will just repeat that these all appear to have formed from natural forces and processes rather than through the actions of some intelligent creator.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: I think, if we were to turn the tables for a moment, and have you disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a timeless, immaterial being that exists in a supernatural realm. I would use your appeals for “God” to support the existence of IPU, and you could employ the full force of logic to demonstrate that IPU does not exist. Are you willing to give it a try? I think it would be quite fun.

YOU: Sure. First of all, it should be noted that an IPU as you have defined as immaterial, and timeless is incoherent.

"Invisible" is fine since things exist that are not visible, such as time, love, joy, etc. However, "pink" is a color that results from a certain combination of frequencies of the light spectrum.

Can you prove that pink can’t exist in the absence of the light spectrum? You are displaying your materialist assumptions. Lose the tunnel vision. Remember, this is a SUPERNATURAL pink. It exists above, beyond and transcends natural pink. The age-old error of aIPUism is that it falsely requires *scientific* evidence for a "metaphysical claim". The notion of IPU is a metaphysical notion. To require physical or scientific proof for a claim that is, by definition, - *metaphysical*, is about as absurd as someone demanding metaphysical proof for something that is proposed to be physical.

#### The light spectrum is natural, not supernatural. ####

Exactly my point. The IPU is pink in the supernatural realm. It is comparable to but not the same as natural pink. It is a pink that transcends, is above and beyond the pink of the natural universe. Can you prove that pink cannot exist supernaturally? If you cannot, then we have no reason to listen to you.

#### Also, if something is "invisible", how could it *receive* light become a certain color, and not be visible? ####

You are once again displaying the pathetic limitations of your naturalistic assumptions. Superstring theory, quantum mechanics and other new theories of physics show that what we assume to be “true” about the matter and energy are not necessarily correct. Furthermore, you are falsely meshing natural laws into the metaphysical realm and trying to subjugate it to the same limitations. Unless you can prove that something cannot be both pink and invisible in the supernatural realm, we have no reason to believe you.

#### Where would the light be coming from? ####

Even if light were necessary for pink in the supernatural ream, could you prove that light cannot reach my metaphysical IPU? I think not. In any case, what scientific basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.

#### Secondly, "unicorn" is an already-known-to-be mythological animal of folklore.####

Like those things called “gods’? You reject all those other gods as mythological yet you say that one god in particular is real. Likewise, I claim that while there are many mythological unicorns, my Invisible Pink Unicorn is real.

Furthermore, what we know about reality is merely .0000001 of all possible knowledge. To discount the existence of IPU when we possess so little of all possible knowledge is absolutely ridiculous. If your rejection of IPU is based on what you "think" we know today, then your rejection of IPU is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.

#### But even apart from being mythological and folklore, the fact that "unicorn" is already defined as a "physical" animal contradicts your previous fallacy of attributing it with immateriality, supernaturalism, timelessness, etc. ####

I did not define it as physical; I specifically called it “immaterial.” It is an immaterial, timeless, invisible pink Unicorn, a metaphysical, intelligent being with personhood, volition, freedom, and love. It is a creative and moral agent. The fact that people have believed in unicorns AND the supernatural throughout history gives us very good reason to believe in IPU. In fact most people believe in the supernatural, so this constitutes LEGAL EVIDENCE for IPU, which is a supernatural being.

#### So your rhetoric of INVISIBLE, PINK, UNICORN when combined are three terms that contradict each other and therefore nullify their ability to be conceptually or definitionally possible.####

You are forgetting that IPU transcends the natural universe. Therefore your objections, which are based on natural attributes that you have falsely applied to IPU, are not relevant. Before you can deny that IPU exists, you have to demonstrate that the laws of the physical universe, which you mistakenly applied to IPU, are applicable to ALL of reality. You have not done this-therefore you cannot deny IPU. Your rejection of IPU is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.

#### (Also note: the fact that you personally do not really believe in this IPU functions as GOOD reason for me not to believe it either. If even the proponent of an idea does not believe in the truth of his own proposition, there is no reason for any one else to either.)####

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that anyone can use your rhetorical gymnastics to “argue” for any ludicrous falsehood, so your objection completely misses the point and is irrelevant.

In any case, can you prove that I don’t believe in IPU? If you cannot, then we have no reason to believe you. Furthermore, whether I believe or not, my opinion hardly has any impact on the overwhelming, unbearable and undeniable reality of IPU.

Finally, if you do not accept IPU, you are going to be flame broiled on a grill for all eternity. IPU offers you the means of salvation, so you will have no excuse on judgment day. Your efforts to disprove IPUism have so far failed, so I ask you to assemble your best arguments against IPUism and send them to me so I can readily dismember them.

Brooks