Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? No more than I do mine. I am simply using logical thinking to point to the very obvious existence of transcendental intelligence. By completely disregarding that, you are showing that you, also, are only seeing what you want to see.

Yes, I can honestly say that I know what I'm talking about.

Am I completely disregarding it, or am I asking you to evidence your claims? You aren't evidencing your claims, you are using -logical fallacy- to try to evidence your claims and not understanding that you are even doing it.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


There is nothing fallacious about my logic. Give me one specific example where it becomes such -- and explain thoroughly!

reply to post by HarryTZ


This Atheist call in show's first caller is using all the bad arguments you do.

first cause argument, arguments from authority, argument from ignorance and argument from complexity. If your failing to understand what your doing wrong... a quick Google search on these terms should embarrass you.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

There is nothing fallacious about my logic. Give me one specific example where it becomes such -- and explain thoroughly!

I will do better than that.

Here are a list of some of the fallacies you have committed to in this thread. Pick any -3- that you want and I will go into detail about how you made each one.

Appeal to Probability
Existential Fallacy
Argument From Ignorance
Ad Nauseam
Onus Probandi
Petitio Principii
If-By-Whiskey
Contextomy
Kettle logic
Inflation Of Conflict
Wrong direction

I'll even accept the anything from the list that the previous poster mentioned as well. I could have gone on with my list, but I made my point.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


All of them. I want to know how I can strengthen my *apparently* weak argument.

reply to post by HarryTZ



This isn't important enough to me to go into a 10,000 word paper on why it's illogical. Pick 3 of them.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


The first three.

reply to post by HarryTZ


I'm glad that you chose these 3, as they aren't simple to explain, but are probably the most rewarding to point out because they aren't obvious at first glance.

Appeal to Probability

en.wikipedia.org...

It is no coincidence that these forces exist, and in exactly the right proportions for life to eventually form.

Claim:Life exists because of Forces in the the exact right proportions.


You cannot take as granted that these are the only proportions of forces suitable for sustaining life merely because probability dictated that Life emerged from this specific set of proportional forces. You must evidence the claim that this specific set of proportional forces is the only one that allows for life before you can begin to hope to argue that it was intelligently designed that way.

There is no known way to make test that theory in my estimation.


Existential fallacy

en.wikipedia.org...

in order for the universe to exist as utterly complex as it does, there must be some, shall we say, 'Divine Intelligence' behind its complexity.

Claim: Divine Intelligence exists because the Universe is complex.

If a universe can exist without being complex, does that prove that this universe was intelligently created merely BECAUSE it is complex? No, because if a simple universe can exist without intelligent design, probability dictates that a complex universe can also exist with no help from an intelligent designer.

Argument from ignorance

en.wikipedia.org...

There could not have been a 'time before' God, because both the concepts of 'time' and 'before' did not exist.

Claim: Time has a beginning.

You are claiming that Time has a beginning, because God made it. You offer no evidence that it does, and are merely arguing from the position that their isn't any evidence to counter the claim.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I will not argue or continue to try and defend my thoughts, as I have grown very tired of the futility. Therefore, you are right.

Satisfied? Probably not.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I will not argue or continue to try and defend my thoughts, as I have grown very tired of the futility. Therefore, you are right.

Satisfied? Probably not.

Is it satisfying to point out the futility of superstition?

Yes, yes it is.

ETA:

Even now you don't get it.

This was never about me 'being right', it is about you being wrong.

It's also satisfying to me that you decided to repeat yourself below this post.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Give it up, Michael. No one is going to continue arguing with you (at least not me, anyway).

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? No more than I do mine. I am simply using logical thinking to point to the very obvious existence of transcendental intelligence. By completely disregarding that, you are showing that you, also, are only seeing what you want to see.

Where is the physical, Note that I say PHYSCIAL, evidence that God exists. The only evidence is your own justification that a God Must exist because there is nothing else to explain the things you cannot explain. Your opinion is biased beyond your own belief. No one is disregarding anything because there isn't anything to disregard in the first place. If someone had something tangible to prove there is a God and they chose to ignore that evidence then your argument would stand but alas, you have nothing but a philosophical idea that a God must exist in order for the universe to make sense for yourself. Your logic completely eats itself over and over..

reply to post by S3rvoV3ritas


Is someone going to make an useful contribution or are we just going to continue to tell Harry how 'illogical' he is?

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by S3rvoV3ritas

 

Is someone going to make an useful contribution or are we just going to continue to tell Harry how 'illogical' he is?

What would a 'useful' contribution look like to you, Harry?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


New arguments and viewpoints. Oh, and without all the belittling.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

New arguments and viewpoints.

These should be coming from you, Harry. You presented the thesis. This thread is a sort of defense of your thesis, your idea. Why should anyone present new arguments when all you have done is side-step the arguments and viewpoints that others have already presented?

I mean, you asked me to give even one example of how you were being illogical, and I presented three.

You promptly folded, saying you weren't even going to defend your own position against them.

Explain why anyone else should go through the effort to add new information if you just discard it uncontested?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I have not 'side-stepped' anything, but if that's what you wanna call my responses, so be it.

Also, your pointing out my so-called 'fallacies' was not an useful addition to the argument, at all. It was completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, if I am the only one presenting all the arguments, I'm going to run out at some point. That is why I requested new arguments and viewpoints.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

A Perfect Reflection

But ONLY at this moment in earth evolution when there are self aware and reflective sentient observers on earth to observe it (in early earth history the moon appeared much much larger being much closer to the earth).

I say it's an allegory, intended for our recognition by God as the first/last cause and designer. Talk about far reaching control of space and time though..

People wanted evidence, well there it is right before our very eyes and in our midst so that it's unmistakable and undeniable.

And if you'd like to call it a pure "coincidence" I'm more than prepared to have that debate and show you how utterly preposterous such a notion is when the entire earth-moon-sun configuration is taken into account, along with the whole process of earth evolution in favor of life.

Regards,

NAM

Bump because this has been glossed over and has yet to be fully understood by well by anyone else it would seem except maybe the person who gave me a star for it.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Please offer your argument, thanks. I've yet to see one from an atheist which isn't in the final analysis prepared to argue for one's own non-existence before acknowledging the possibility of a designer/creator.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


It makes sense to me, but good luck with these other folks.