A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

quote:

---

Example: Newbie says: Albert Einstein was a Christian because he once wrote In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

---

Most of what the majority of humanity holds as sacred truths are in fact the antithesis of truth and coherence - yet the masses uphold these truths. The mutually exclusive beiefs of Christianity and Islam, even relating to dates, places, geography and history of the same space-times, for example, say that one of them is 100% false. But over a Billion people will kill and die for that same falsehood. Here, no amount of proof will resolve such anamolies. A cherished lie transcends a disdained truth. Humanity is yet at the primitive phase. Isn't Moses a Muslim!?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

At least give congratulations to the most scientific response yet when one has been check mated with a challenge.

Einstein upheld a Creator [universe maker behind the universe] - because he accepted the universe is finite. You have not. Only one premise is still science.

My challenge stands. Accept the Genesis premise the universe is absolutely and non-negotiably finite - and then debate if the universe emerged by itself or by a transcendent, precedent force with no alternatives applying. Else you guys are winking in the dark and shouting eureka with half sentences - that is not science.