Did you actually read my posts, or are you just carrying frustration from an unrelated thread?
Yes, and I don't see you saying "This is a point to make so that our young student isn't caught blindsided by the claim that it is an either or proposition."
I did give pro arguments, RAZD. I simply also noted their likely counters.
You stated the argument with **
one** rather small pro: "This bypasses the "poor design" counter" - and then went on for a full and much longer paragraph on why you think it is a
BAD argument. So yeah, it was deja vu all over again.
So I am disappointed.
There are many theistic arguments, and the common element of all of them is that there is no conflict between evolution being a natural process that is part of the god plan.
We can also talk about how this position cannot be invalidated, and how invalidation is important to science, but is not able to deal with concepts outside science, concepts that are part of philosophy and faith where there is no (and not likely to be) evidence pro or con, so that acceptance of such ideas is more based on world view than on logic and reason.
We can talk about how making an
ad lapidem comparison to such belief with as silly a
reductio ad absurdum concept as can dreamed up
ad hoc is also a logical fallacy:
1. Your belief is like this argument
2. This argument is silly\ridiculous\delusional
∴ therefore your argument is silly\ridiculous\delusional
All A is B, B, ∴ A
All you have shown is that you can make up a silly\ridiculous\delusional argument, not that you can deal with the belief.
Take Stragglers
intermediate example:
quote:
The proposal that alien life of some sort is likely to exist somewhere in the universe, I think most would agree is a rational conclusion that is both itself strictly unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence (I don't want to drag this thread down the "aliens exist" route however so let's not get too caught up in the specifics)
Thus arguments\claims that are "unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence" are not necessarily silly\ridiculous\delusional, and such theistic refutation arguments as you presented are not valid.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2