There you go again....bad logic.  Thought you said you understood? Pretty sure you just got done acknowledging the fact that people have explained the fallacious nature of your mantra?

(October 30, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To be fair, no debate has occurred in this thread.  For there to be a debate...both sides must present a case......

i have presented my case : Intelligent Design is responsible for the laws of nature and i listed the reason why i have this belief . you havent presented your position why the laws of nature exist and what you believe created the laws of nature and why you believe that . ive presented my argument for you havent presented your argument against . so right we cant debate anything until the other side does that

(October 30, 2015 at 5:19 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i have presented my case : Intelligent Design is responsible for the laws of nature and i listed the reason why i have this belief . you havent presented your position why the laws of nature exist and what you believe created the laws of nature and why you believe that . ive presented my argument for you havent presented your argument against . so right we cant debate anything until the other side does that

That is not your case, that is your assertion.  The reasons you've given are a collection of formal and informal logical fallacies.  That falls well below the bar for having made a case, you realize?  I would settle for you making a case with "facts" that are 100% incorrect..so long as you manage to use just one single valid inference to tie them together.  I'd say, if you could do that, that you'd made a case.  Maybe a poor case, but a case, at least.  It's not even an argument, because to be an argument, it must meet specific and well defined standards, namely...that valid inferences are leveraged......

I literally cannot argue against something you have yet to provide, except to remind you that you have yet to provide it.

You asked me a question, I answered it...you're not pretending that I haven't (lol).....so.........what's the deal here?

(October 30, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 3:57 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im just waiting on the proof actually begging for it here

What are exactly are you waiting on proof of?

That your posts are fallacious? Every time you have made a logically flawed and fallacious post, it has been pointed out to you.

So far you have been guilty of: argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, special pleading, straw man and I'm sure others. 

Have you even taken the time to google "logical fallacies" so you can see your mistakes? It will actually make you a better debater. But I'm sure you are much more content in your willful ignorance.

If you are waiting for proof of something else, name it.

im waiting on proof , or at least an argument , for the claim that complex organization (such as the organized laws within nature) do not require intelligence .   yes there has been criticism about completely unrelated subjects such as debating techniques , exc. but that has nothing to do with the actual topic of what did or did not contribute to the laws of physics / nature

Is there any problem with what you've already been given?  Or are we pretending that this hasn't happened? You're sitting here talking about proof and argument, and then claiming that "debating techniques" are unrelated subjects that have nothing to do with the topic?

Really? You think that the -fact-...that you've been unable to mount a valid inference is unrelated to our topic....of argument......and proof, and whether or not any given proposition has either going for it? I guess we're coming back around to correcting you on the meanings of words again, fucking christ.

(October 30, 2015 at 4:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 4:25 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im not pretending that you didnt im saying that you have not yet given your theory about how the laws of physics came to exist

If you're not pretending that I hadn't already answered the question...then why are you asking again?  You know my answer, I've given it, and you aren't pretending that I haven't.  

Quote:yes all that has been explained im just waiting for a theory about why the laws of nature exist . not the word " laws of nature " not terms that man has developed to define it but the actual laws of physics and nature which are well organized what is the theory about why and how they exist.

Okay...so, you understand how poorly you've behaved in this thread, right?  Good, moving on.

You're going to need to be -far- more specific.  If I'm not sure what it is you're asking...then I can't possibly answer the question.  Pick one, pick a law of nature...lets see, firstly, what you think a law of nature is, and if we have an explanation for why that came to be.  Eh?

ok photosynthesis what is your theory about how photosynthesis came to exist and why do you believe that ?

I can give you -the- theory, but I couldn't claim credit for it.  That's not, btw...a law of nature.  See why it was important for me to know what you're talking about?  We aren't talking about laws of nature at all.  Do you still want an explanation, or would you rather hold out for an actual law of nature?

(October 30, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There you go again....bad logic.  Thought you said you understood?  Pretty sure you just got done acknowledging the fact that people have explained the fallacious nature of your mantra?

how is saying that intelligent beings create complex things bad logic ? arent you typing on a keyboard right now something that was created by an intelligent being ?

You're pretending...that this hasn't already been explained to you?  You just acknowledged, a few posts back...that it had been explained to you.

Look, pick a fucking story and stick to it, shitposter.

Logic doesn't work like that. The appearance of design, simply because you know that humans make complex things by design, does not mean it must be design when you find it in nature. I've tried explaining the difference (going "against" natural ways of things, like heating the ore in a crucible until it is the pure metal), but you keep saying "humans make stuff, so every stuff is made".

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. "It came after, therefore it was caused by." It is a common fallacy, because of our human pattern-seeking brains. An example is that you see a lightning flash, way off in the distance. A few seconds later, you hear a gigantic BOOM! Was the boom the thunder from that lightning? You might assume so. But what if you find out later that the lightning was several miles away from you, too many miles away to be able to hear the thunder from it, but the lightning actually hit a gunpowder factory and exploded it, resulting in a bigger boom, loud enough for you to hear at that distance? Your experience taught you it must be thunder, but the facts, upon closer examination, did not bear that fact out.

Your experience tells you that everything that is complex must be designed, because you have only ever seen complex things by design. Okay. We get that. But that's not the only way complexity can emerge. We're telling you the factory explosion is what caused the sound you heard, and all you're doing is sitting here saying, "Nope! Thunder always follows lightning!!"

And we're sitting here, telling you that's not how it works, and yet you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again.

There may in fact be a designer behind the universe. But it's not necessary as an explanation. It is not required to explain it, so you'd need a good reason to add that to the explanation, and there's no good reason.

You trying to apply this principle you see in the world around you, but that doesn't mean it's applicable to scientific explanations. You've never seen four hydrogen isotopes squeezed together to form a helium nucleus (or any other type of fusion) in all your experiences of life, so it's counterintuitive to think that enough gravity could squeeze gasses together until they become other gasses and release energy, but that doesn't mean the sun doesn't operate by nuclear fusion.

It's the same argument we get from Creationists: "I've never seen anything evolve! Cats give birth only to cats!", as if the only way they can grasp how evolution works is to see a cat give birth to a puppy (which isn't even what it says).