(Today at 3:19 am)Jal Wrote:

(Today at 3:12 am)Deesse23 Wrote: That was gibberish and a non answer, and we both know it.

I take it as a "not at all"

What makes you think you can make informed statements about which you have NO education about? Does that question ring a bell wrt to the course of this thread? You remember how ravenshire asked you exactly this wrt science?

The problem with you is: you see no problem with being completely ignorant. It's a non issue to you, and that's exactly what you told ravenshire.

What makes me qualified to criticize popular views? The stupidity of those views.

A very basic education in any science, particularly the ones you are criticizing and a demonstration of yours that you actually have understood your lessons. What Level of scientific education do you have?

(Today at 3:12 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Even a relatively stupid person can easily find the flaws in stupid views.

...unless your are so ignorant you dont know how ignorant you are. The people you may criticize are potentially wrong, but you possibly are too ignorant to make valid points against them.
On what basis do you determine that evolution is wrong? Its a well established theory for over 100 years and entire generations of scientist have devoted their entire life to critically examine it. So far there is a mountain of evidence in favour of it and nothing has been presented yet to disprove it. Are you so arrogant to believe these hordes of PhD holders who invested their entire professional lives, did some "stupid" mistakes like missing that 2+2=4 or that consciousness can only come from consciousness. DO you seriously think that was never considered?
Your entire attitude shows me that you did NOT have any scientific education, because you lack the humility to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND before you try to criticize. Me and many of my co-students were the same, in our first year at university, and we were QUICKLY disabused of the notion that our professors who had decades of study and lecture under their belt did some "stupid mistakes" and that we "exposed" this stupidity.

I am going to shortly address, passing by so to say, that you not only dont know what you are criticizing, you dont even know what you believe. When i told you the trinity is incoherent you answered by suggesting you understand trinity as partialism. Actually partialism is a heresy, and the trinitarian belief is the belief that all three entities (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) are the SAME entity at the same time. This mere fact should make you stop in your track immediately and critically examine your beliefs and epistemology. Add to that the fact that most christians disagree with your theology, most philosophers with your philosophy and scientists with your claims about science.

Please let that sink in for a second before you hit the reply button.

(9 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(9 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Apparent contradictions are only a problem if no resolution is accessible. I am  not aware of any unresolved contradictions in my stance. 

Also, reductionistic evolution seems improbable. Here they will say, "Your incredulity is not an argument." Bullshit.  That's a copout. Suppose a bank employee opens the vault and find it empty. Three possibilities enter his mind.
(1) A human thief invaded the vault.
(2) An alien from outer space invaded the vault.
(3) A naturalistic explanation (some weird accident of Nature) emptied the vault.

Options 2 and 3 might be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE but fill him with incredulity. So which theory is he going to present to the bank manager?
I'm not saying that incredulity is an argument always decisive and final. Pretty much all theories are tentative. But to dismiss it out of hand is just a copout conveniently availed of by evolutionists. 

In terms of reductionistic atheism, the human reproductive systems fill me with incredulity, specifically the gender disparity. I am really supposed to believe that male and female humans evolved their genitalia separately and concurrently? Such that, on the day that a man evolved his genitalia fully, it just so happens on that same day he found a female whose genitalia had separately evolved as a perfect match? I realize you could argue for a selective advantage, but it's really stretching my incredulity. That takes more faith than belief in a creator,  as far as I can see.

Hume gave the relevant criteria for an analogy in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.  In as much as the analogy resembles that which it is considered analogous to, the analogy has force.  Insofar as the analogized is removed in likeness from the analogy, the analogy enjoys less force, to the point that if the analogized is completely unlike, the analogy has no force.  There are many ways the mysteries of the universe are unlike your bank vault example, but it is sufficient to point to two.  Emptied bank vaults are repeatable events and thus can be informed by experience.  Not so the mysteries of the universe, as things like quantum physics, relativity, and genetic drift present real phenomenon for which experience is not a satisfactory guide.  The second is that in examining the bank analogy we are examining what is probable.  If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true.  In the case of a bank vault, we have prior probabilities and background knowledge.  In the case of the mysteries of the universe, we are lacking these things.   Insofar as you are making an argument about probability, aka an argument to the most likely hypothesis, the consensus opinion is that things such as evolution, quantum mechanics, determinism, and Einstein's relativity are far more probable than an merely asserted axiom of universal consciousness.  As probably true, I'm perfectly in my rights to examine your evidence and your judgment.  As far as evidence, you basically have none.  You have a lot of philosophical flim-flam and rhetoric.  As to judgment, you dismiss Einstein because you don't understand his work.  That's piss poor judgment.  Until you show your work as to why your incredulity should be relied upon, I'm wholly justified in dismissing the incredulity of some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime.

You find the bank vault scenario clear and repeatable. To some extent that is part of my point.  I see a watch, I postulate a watchmaker as the most probable source. Why so? Clear and easily repeatable.  I myself am probably clay in the hands of a Potter. Why so? Because such a scenario is clear and easily repeatable (unless you've never heard of clay nor potters). Not quite so much with abiogenesis and evolution.  In terms of probability, then, I'm more inclined to posit the Watchmaker/Potter than evolution, especially since I myself, like Newton, cannot conceive a  solid domino-basis for "forces" like gravity. 


"Some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime."  Except there is nothing simple about curved space. If it sounds like gibberish, it quite often is such.  You can try to tell me that you "comprehend" curved space, but I simply don't believe you do, just like I don't believe the theologian who claims to comprehend the notion of immaterial spirit. Probably you've believed in curved space for so long, you've become so entirely indoctrinated into it, that you really have convinced yourself that you comprehend. I'm confident you don't.


"If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true." I think it's fine to adduce multiple varied arguments in support of a conclusion. Yes one of my arguments is that reductionism seems to be an improbable springboard for the species.

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: You find the bank vault scenario clear and repeatable. To some extent that is part of my point.  I see a watch, I postulate a watchmaker as the most probable source. Why so? Clear and easily repeatable.  I myself am probably clay in the hands of a Potter. Why so? Because such a scenario is clear and easily repeatable (unless you've never heard of clay nor potters). Not quite so much with abiogenesis and evolution.  In terms of probability, then, I'm more inclined to posit the Watchmaker/Potter than evolution, especially since I myself, like Newton, cannot conceive a  solid domino-basis for "forces" like gravity. 

Bolding mine
You, like Newton: You, like Bozo the clown, behave in silly ways. The thing is: They laughed about Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Please convince us you are like Newton, so far we have only seen your red nose and oversized shoes.

Quote:Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

(8 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote:

(Today at 3:19 am)Jal Wrote: What makes me qualified to criticize popular views? The stupidity of those views.

A very basic education in any science, particularly the ones you are criticizing and a demonstration of yours that you actually have understood your lessons. What Level of scientific education do you have?

(Today at 3:12 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Even a relatively stupid person can easily find the flaws in stupid views.

...unless your are so ignorant you dont know how ignorant you are. The people you may criticize are potentially wrong, but you possibly are too ignorant to make valid points against them.
On what basis do you determine that evolution is wrong? Its a well established theory for over 100 years and entire generations of scientist have devoted their entire life to critically examine it. So far there is a mountain of evidence in favour of it and nothing has been presented yet to disprove it. Are you so arrogant to believe these hordes of PhD holders who invested their entire professional lives, did some "stupid" mistakes like missing that 2+2=4 or that consciousness can only come from consciousness. DO you seriously think that was never considered?
Your entire attitude shows me  that you did NOT have any scientific education, because you lack the humility to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND before you try to criticize. Me and many of my co-students were the same, in our first year at university, and we were QUICKLY disabused of the notion that our professors who had decades of study and lecture under their belt did some "stupid mistakes" and that we "exposed" this stupidity.

I am going to shortly address, passing by so to say, that you not only dont know what you are criticizing, you dont even know what you believe. When i told you the trinity is incoherent you answered by suggesting you understand trinity as partialism. Actually partialism is a heresy, and the trinitarian belief is the belief that all three entities (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) are the SAME entity at the same time. This mere fact should make you stop in your track immediately and critically examine your beliefs and epistemology. Add to that the fact that most christians disagree with your theology, most philosophers with your philosophy and scientists with your claims about science.

Please let that sink in for a second before you hit the reply button.

Please don't lecture me on traditional assessments of Christian heresy. These assessments are formulated by the same kinds of scholars who
(1) Admit that the traditional theory of the Incarnation is incomprehensible and self-contradictory.
(2) Claim that an immutable God became man.
(3) Claim that God is immaterial, therefore indivisible into parts, and yet is a Trinity. 
(4) Claim that God is already fully/exhaustively present at every point in space - and yet pours out His Holy Spirit! Pours it where? Where He was already there?

These are examples of historic idiocy, and I can show you more.

Even Millard J. Erickson, whose systematic theology textbook is the most popular one in seminaries today, or at least was such in his heyday, admitted that the traditional rendition of the Trinity is logically "absurd from the human standpoint" (his words).

(8 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote:

Quote:Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

That's like saying a false dichotomy is a well known fallacy. Perfectly correct - once you've show a particular example to be a false dichotomy.  You have to do the work. In the same way, incredulity is a fallacy only when you've shown  a particular example to be a wholly unjustified incredulity. You have to do the work. Duh.

(9 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(9 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: If matter can always have existed then why can't it always have been in motion.  This is characteristic of your whole philosophy.  Where you need a boundary, you arbitrarily declare one.  Where there appear natural boundaries such as in degrees of sentience, you arbitrarily declare there are none.  You want people to be reasonable up until the point that reason delivers something you don't like such as non-Euclidean spacetime.  This isn't argument.  This is a bunch of arbitrary assumptions, old outdated theological arguments, and wishful thinking dressed up as philosophical argument.  You may not like that your entire OP is premised upon a non sequitur but that is a fact.  As a result, your conclusions simply do not follow.



Have you deductively shown the things in your OP are implausible?  No you have not.  Therefore hinging your argument on your incredulity is a classic argument from ignorance.

"Your conclusions simply do not follow." Well duh. Nobody's conclusions "follow". Pretty much all conclusions are tentative. I can't give you an absolute proof of hardly anything. I can't even prove that you exist. You might be AI, for example. Not to mention solipsism. On the other hand I don't think my conclusions are arbitrary. 



"If matter can always have existed then why can't it always have been in motion." With no START for the motion? That heralds an infinite past with no beginning. Total gibberish. Total nonsense.  Just because I can't prove anything doesn't mean I must opt for those conclusions that strike me as least cogent and sound like gibberish. I don't care how many scholars endorse such solutions. I respect scholars but, at the end of the day, I have to decide for myself whether I agree with their conclusions.

An infinite past is one way in which things could have always been in motion. There being no initial temporal boundary in the beginning being another. You imagine the former but not the latter and prematurely close the inquiry. This is the problem with incredulity as an argument, it is limited to what we know and can imagine. Given the arguments you've made, and my experience with similar arguments, I know from experience that your incredulous doubts do not hold up to scrutiny. Now, if you want to pass judgment on what experts believe as a purely personal matter, determining what you wish to believe, that's your prerogative. As a matter of you being here, you are making an argument that we should accept your conclusions, it's no longer a question of your belief, your argument need overcome our skepticism. For a variety of reasons it fails to do so. You're welcome to believe that you have presented a good case, but your presentation reveals that it is informed by ignorance, a lack of imagination, a general lack of logical rigor, and several logical flaws which despite your attempts to mitigate them with inappropriate analogies continue to bedevil the wholer edifice. In short, the only person you've managed to convince is yourself. And as Feynman observed, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool." The evidence from people that know what they are talking about, not those with limited imaginations and distinctly cloistered knowledge bases (you), find the things you consider implausible wholly plausible. So I have two options. I can remain agnostic about your conclusion, my preferred stance, or if forced to weigh your opinion against that of experts, come down decidedly on the side of experts. That's your starting point. And so far you haven't moved the ball any with logically constructed argument or informed explanations. Why should I believe your opinion about the credibility of these things? Give me one good reason why I should grant your incredulity a shred of credibility? Like many arguments rooted in religion, what you present is not likely to persuade any but those who are already sympathetic to your conclusions. That's a telling sign that all your blather cannot overcome.

(8 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(9 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "Your conclusions simply do not follow." Well duh. Nobody's conclusions "follow". Pretty much all conclusions are tentative. I can't give you an absolute proof of hardly anything. I can't even prove that you exist. You might be AI, for example. Not to mention solipsism. On the other hand I don't think my conclusions are arbitrary. 



"If matter can always have existed then why can't it always have been in motion." With no START for the motion? That heralds an infinite past with no beginning. Total gibberish. Total nonsense.  Just because I can't prove anything doesn't mean I must opt for those conclusions that strike me as least cogent and sound like gibberish. I don't care how many scholars endorse such solutions. I respect scholars but, at the end of the day, I have to decide for myself whether I agree with their conclusions.

An infinite past is one way in which things could have always been in motion.   There being no initial temporal boundary in the beginning being another.   You imagine the former but not the latter and prematurely close the inquiry.  This is the problem with incredulity as an argument, it is limited to what we know and can imagine.  Given the arguments you've made, and my experience with similar arguments, I know from experience that your incredulous doubts do not hold up to scrutiny.  Now, if you want to pass judgment on what experts believe as a purely personal matter, determining what you wish to believe, that's your prerogative.  As a matter of you being here, you are making an argument that we should accept your conclusions, it's no longer a question of your belief, your argument need overcome our skepticism.  For a variety of reasons it fails to do so.  You're welcome to believe that you have presented a good case, but your presentation reveals that it is informed by ignorance, a lack of imagination, a general lack of logical rigor, and several logical flaws which despite your attempts to mitigate them with inappropriate analogies continue to bedevil the wholer edifice.  In short, the only person you've managed to convince is yourself.  And as Feynman observed, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."  The evidence from people that know what they are talking about, not those with limited imaginations and distinctly cloistered knowledge bases (you), find the things you consider implausible wholly plausible.  So I have two options.  I can remain agnostic about your conclusion, my preferred stance, or if forced to weigh your opinion against that of experts, come down decidedly on the side of experts.  That's your starting point.  And so far you haven't moved the ball any with logically constructed argument or informed explanations.  Why should I believe your opinion about the credibility of these things?  Give me one good reason why I should grant your incredulity a shred of credibility?  Like many arguments rooted in religion, what you present is not likely to persuade any but those who are already sympathetic to your conclusions.  That's a telling sign that all your blather cannot overcome.

Occam's Razor. If I can easily account for stuff without recourse to gibberish such as an infinite past, it probably behooves me to do so.

"I know from experience that your incredulous doubts do not hold up to scrutiny." That may be true. I didn't say my argument was apodictic,  nor was it meant to win you to my position. It's just a tentative opinion that I felt inclined to share with the gallery.  Feel free to ignore it. 

You seem to appeal to authority, perhaps too much for my taste. I cannot 100% trust scholars. They are not infallible. When they seem unreasonable, I have to formulate my own arguments and conclusions. On this thread, I don't see anyone defeating the basic argument made in my OP.

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(9 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: Hume gave the relevant criteria for an analogy in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.  In as much as the analogy resembles that which it is considered analogous to, the analogy has force.  Insofar as the analogized is removed in likeness from the analogy, the analogy enjoys less force, to the point that if the analogized is completely unlike, the analogy has no force.  There are many ways the mysteries of the universe are unlike your bank vault example, but it is sufficient to point to two.  Emptied bank vaults are repeatable events and thus can be informed by experience.  Not so the mysteries of the universe, as things like quantum physics, relativity, and genetic drift present real phenomenon for which experience is not a satisfactory guide.  The second is that in examining the bank analogy we are examining what is probable.  If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true.  In the case of a bank vault, we have prior probabilities and background knowledge.  In the case of the mysteries of the universe, we are lacking these things.   Insofar as you are making an argument about probability, aka an argument to the most likely hypothesis, the consensus opinion is that things such as evolution, quantum mechanics, determinism, and Einstein's relativity are far more probable than an merely asserted axiom of universal consciousness.  As probably true, I'm perfectly in my rights to examine your evidence and your judgment.  As far as evidence, you basically have none.  You have a lot of philosophical flim-flam and rhetoric.  As to judgment, you dismiss Einstein because you don't understand his work.  That's piss poor judgment.  Until you show your work as to why your incredulity should be relied upon, I'm wholly justified in dismissing the incredulity of some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime.

You find the bank vault scenario clear and repeatable. To some extent that is part of my point.  I see a watch, I postulate a watchmaker as the most probable source. Why so? Clear and easily repeatable.  I myself am probably clay in the hands of a Potter. Why so? Because such a scenario is clear and easily repeatable (unless you've never heard of clay nor potters). Not quite so much with abiogenesis and evolution.  In terms of probability, then, I'm more inclined to posit the Watchmaker/Potter than evolution, especially since I myself, like Newton, cannot conceive a  solid domino-basis for "forces" like gravity. 

You miss the point. As the Humean argument goes, the more like an analogy the greater the force. The less similar, the less force. You were defending incredulity as your guide and it was shown that the analogy supporting your defense is unlike the analogized. As an analogy in defense of argument from incredulity about these subjects it fails. Instead of addressing that incredulity still has no legitimate defense, you simply change the subject toward another area where, without adequate justification, you use incredulity as a guide. Hume himself pointed out how the watchmaker analogy is faulty, that you would defend it in this context, given that the relevant counter-argument has been clearly suggested by Hume's analysis, suggests you are rather dense and immune to reason.

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "Some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime."  Except there is nothing simple about curved space. If it sounds like gibberish, it quite often is such.  You can try to tell me that you "comprehend" curved space, but I simply don't believe you do, just like I don't believe the theologian who claims to comprehend the notion of immaterial spirit. Probably you've believed in curved space for so long, you've become so entirely indoctrinated into it, that you really have convinced yourself that you comprehend. I'm confident you don't.

I don't "believe in" curved spacetime. I simply don't find the concept incoherent as you do. It's not a question of whether I can make sense of Einstein's equations but rather whether there is anything immediately contradictory about the concept of spacetime. My training is in mathematics, so imagining difficult geometric concepts is something I have a strength regarding. That you cannot imagine the concept of curved spacetime, despite the standard 2D explainer being readily available and well known simply again suggests that you are somewhat dense.

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true." I think it's fine to adduce multiple varied arguments in support of a conclusion. Yes one of my arguments is that reductionism seems to be an improbable springboard for the species.

And the answer to that is that nothing follows from your incredulity unless it is informed by sound justification for your doubts. Your little digression about the evolution of sex shows that not only do you present defective reasons for your incredulity (coevolution is a simple response), it shows that you are likely infected with a lot of dumb creationist and natural theology arguments which suggests greater scrutiny for the reasons you provide, not less. You are a cloistered idiot who cannot simply accept the fact that he has departed into heretical ideas because the Christian bible on its face is a bunch of impossible to reconcile bollocks. Hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you kept the bathwater and formed an ersatz baby from a bunch of other religiously embraced but largely rejected notions. Like a drunk in the night, you seem to have issues simply leaving the lamp post behind.

(7 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: You find the bank vault scenario clear and repeatable. To some extent that is part of my point.  I see a watch, I postulate a watchmaker as the most probable source. Why so? Clear and easily repeatable.  I myself am probably clay in the hands of a Potter. Why so? Because such a scenario is clear and easily repeatable (unless you've never heard of clay nor potters). Not quite so much with abiogenesis and evolution.  In terms of probability, then, I'm more inclined to posit the Watchmaker/Potter than evolution, especially since I myself, like Newton, cannot conceive a  solid domino-basis for "forces" like gravity. 

You miss the point.  As the Humean argument goes, the more like an analogy the greater the force.  The less similar, the less force.  You were defending incredulity as your guide and it was shown that the analogy supporting your defense is unlike the analogized.  As an analogy in defense of argument from incredulity about these subjects it fails.  Instead of addressing that incredulity still has no legitimate defense, you simply change the subject toward another area where, without adequate justification, you use incredulity as a guide.  Hume himself pointed out how the watchmaker analogy is faulty, that you would defend it in this context, given that the relevant counter-argument has been clearly suggested by Hume's analysis, suggests you are rather dense and immune to reason.  

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "Some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime."  Except there is nothing simple about curved space. If it sounds like gibberish, it quite often is such.  You can try to tell me that you "comprehend" curved space, but I simply don't believe you do, just like I don't believe the theologian who claims to comprehend the notion of immaterial spirit. Probably you've believed in curved space for so long, you've become so entirely indoctrinated into it, that you really have convinced yourself that you comprehend. I'm confident you don't.

I don't "believe in" curved spacetime.  I simply don't find the concept incoherent as you do.  It's not a question of whether I can make sense of Einstein's equations but rather whether there is anything immediately contradictory about the concept of spacetime.  My training is in mathematics, so imagining difficult geometric concepts is something I have a strength regarding.  That you cannot imagine the concept of curved spacetime, despite the standard 2D explainer being readily available and well known simply again suggests that you are somewhat dense.

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true." I think it's fine to adduce multiple varied arguments in support of a conclusion. Yes one of my arguments is that reductionism seems to be an improbable springboard for the species.

And the answer to that is that nothing follows from your incredulity unless it is informed by sound justification for your doubts.  Your little digression about the evolution of sex shows that not only do you present defective reasons for your incredulity (coevolution is a simple response), it shows that you are likely infected with a lot of dumb creationist and natural theology arguments which suggests greater scrutiny for the reasons you provide, not less.  You are a cloistered idiot who cannot simply accept the fact that he has departed into heretical ideas because the Christian bible on its face is a bunch of impossible to reconcile bollocks.  Hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you kept the bathwater and formed an ersatz baby from a bunch of other religiously embraced but largely rejected notions.  Like a drunk in the night, you seem to have issues simply leaving the lamp post behind.

One example of historic idiocy still prevalent among many Christians is bible-based epistemology, as though God intended bible-scholarship to be our primary avenue to religious knowledge.  A far better theory is Direct Revelation (prophethood) as our guiding Light. With this epistemology, the Bible need not be 100% inerrant and free from contradiction. Its main purpose is probably to inspire/ invigorate us by confirming things that Direct Revelation divulged to us. To that end it has ginormous amounts of inspirational text regardless if it has some trivial contradictions.  Personally I've found it difficult to find any contradictions in the Bible. Most such allegations turn out to be reconciliable.

(8 hours ago)Jal Wrote: That's like saying a false dichotomy is a well known fallacy. Perfectly correct - once you've show a particular example to be a false dichotomy.  You have to do the work. In the same way, incredulity is a fallacy only when you've shown  a particular example to be a wholly unjustified incredulity. You have to do the work. Duh.

You've got the burden of proof backward again. I don't need to show that your incredulity is unjustified, you need to show that your incredulity is justified. Until you do, the defect is self-evident.

I'll be more than happy to provide you with an analysis of any specific justification for your incredulity you feel that you have provided. Your OP was largely bare assertions of incredulity.