(January 18, 2015 at 7:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: Lets cut right to the chase, shall we? This thread is 50 pages long, but it could go 500 - and no matter what's said to you, no matter how many times you are corrected on matters for which there is no possibility of disagreement, you'll continue to issue this "challenge". You'll continue to pretend as if the thread didn't exist.
Yes, because this discussion is yet another instance of the 'get your own dirt joke.'
http://www.puritanboard.com/f52/atheist-...man-74594/
The correlation between observations of intellects and objects they have designed only leads to the conclusion that intellect is required for design if that intellect is in actuality a designed object produced by another intellect. If the intellect in question is a natural object, not requiring an intellect for its generation, then its design products are also natural.
I don't know if you need circularity or special pleading to make the inference that design is required for intellect or intellect is required for design, but from the length of this thread, I lean towards the former.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?