Koyaanisqatsi

"Absolute statements" such as fictional creatures do not factually exist?

What has this to do with the question of whether or not a fictional creature from ancient mythology is in fact an actual being?

Irrelevant to the question, but also incorrect. We can very easily concieve the effects of the absence of gravity in theory and witness the effects of lower gravity environments and simply extrapolate from there.

Can we ever reallize the effects of the absence of gravity, as in create some sort of anti-gravity device? Possibly. All of which through tools of logic and reason.

Again, though, what has this to do with applying logic and reason to the claim of theists?

Right. Your point escapes me. The theists claim that our physical reality was willed into existence by a supernatural being (a deity) and you have invoked one of them--the Christian God. So the claim to apply the tools of logic and reason in this case is, "The Christian God willed all of existence into being ex nihilo," yes?

That is the only question (only pertinenant one, I should addend) for which we should apply those tools in order to test the claim, yes?

If no, then why? Because we'd be using tools incapable of testing that claim or insufficient for testing that claim?

Isn't that simply another claim?

Do you see what I'm getting at? All that we have (stripped of all the rhetoric and semantics) are two unsupported claims.

As you may know, claims are a dime a dozen. Anybody can literally claim anything they damn well please. Testing the claim (i.e., proving it) is the pertinant issue, yes?

Again I'll ask, if you arbitrarily throw out the tools we have for testing such claims, then how do you propose we do? Or are we to simply accept your word (or somebody else's word) for it?

That's what the theist ultimately relies upon, yes? Accept it as true.

So we're just here to ask, "why?" And, of course, to point out that you would never accept such standards for any other aspect of your life, yet for arguably this most important one, you do. Why?

For you to attempt to answer that question (if you choose to do so, which is what is going on here) by first claiming that you are not bound by the standards we all apply to every other aspect of our lives is ludicrous and unacceptable.

You can still do it, if you choose, of course, but know simply that the inescapable conclusion to be drawn regarding such a position is "that is unacceptable."

Again, if you don't care that it is unacceptable, then just declare "I don't care" and take your ball and go home, because that is the end of the discussion, yes? How can a discussion possibly move forward if the initiator of the discussion (i.e., the one making an as yet unsupported claim) simply says in response, "Your rules don't apply to this claim?"

And I call for a red flag on the field. No one has said anything at all about denying "the possibility" that a fictional creature from ancient mythology may factually exist; that's not the question in the slightest.

The question is and always shall be, "What is your evidence to support your claim that a fictional creature from ancient mythology factually exists (i.e., is non fictional)?"

That's it. You have made a claim by invoking the Christian God factually existing. What is your evidence to support that claim?

Why is that so difficult for theists to grasp?

Nice try, buy incorrect. The uncertainty you have fallaciously inserted with the term "may" is unwarranted and, if purposefully on your part--bad form.

The question, again, is as it always has been, "What is the evidence you present to support your claim?"

"Reason" and "logic" can indeed be "modified," but by "modified," what are you talking about? Do you mean that something that is currently illogical will some day just magically become logical? Do you mean that "reason" as we use that term today will somehow change tomorrow?

If so, then in what manner? Will a square circle suddenly be possible? If so, again, then what relevance is this to the question at hand?

Is your answer to the question above, "My evidence to support my claim that a fictional creature from ancient mythology created the universe is not comprehensible by human minds?"

What?

Are you claiming that the supernatural being you claim exists will eventually be detectable by humans, then? What is your point?

We can't use "reason" and "logic" to determine whether or not a supernatural creature who created the universe exists or not at this time, but at some undetermined point in the future, we will be able to?

I'm sorry to keep asking so many questions, but I have no idea what it is you are claiming, or how you could possibly justify it with this line of reasoning.

Irony...dripping...

"Reason" and "logic" are not beings that are "influenced" in the manner you are misconstruing. They are nothing more than tools of cognition.

You also keep using the phrase "as we know it today" as if fictional creatures from ancient mythology will just one day (somehow) become non fictional.

It is to that claim that we are most interested in, yes? What is the "somehow" that you are alluding to in your assertion? By revealing itself to us all, I guess?

If so, then "logic" and "reason" would still be tools of cognition that we could apply (or not apply, I guess) as we see fit, but if you are saying that we would need to throw out our conception of "reason" and "logic," because suddenly an unreasonable or illogical event occurred, then you are sorely mistaken (or easily duped, which).

We would (and should) still "apply" those tools to the question at hand, especially if that question is answered as always, "You should just accept what I say as true."

Yes? Or are you arguing that in this case (a supernatural being revealing itself to us and proclaiming that they are the God of the world's religions) no one should apply "logic" and "reason" to that claim?

In other words, we should just accept that Allah was God?

Why should we and what tools should we use, if not logic and reason?

Constantly. There has yet to be an "event," however, such as a square circle or a fictional creature from ancient mythology demonstrated to be non fictional.

Until it can be demonstrated, all of this sidetrack noise is entirely irrelevant.