(December 16, 2010 at 4:44 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Huh? My reason for evolution being the only naturalistic explanation for life is exactly the same as your's. It's the only one thought to be possible by naturalists. You just elaborated on why they think it is the only possible one, something I was well aware of.
Yes, but your statement that all that is left is evolution and creation is unfounded. Your case for creation is unsupported by either evidence in indication or argument at this stage, so for now I maintain that evolution is the only thing on the table.
I would also challenge you to produce a theistic epistemology that demonstrates belief in God and creation is justified without becoming contingent upon fallacy or falling prone to self-refutation or incoherence. It would also have to survive the common epistemic defeaters such as the lottery problem - But perhaps that's best left for next time.
Quote:So exactly why are you requiring me to do all of my argumentation in logical form, when aside from your pyramid argument (which I had to ask for) nobody else on here has presented any argument in formal format? It's special pleading for you to ask more of me than you do of other's just because you agree with their worldviews.
This is not a case of special pleading, for starters I prefer the logical form even if it exposes the flaws in my own arguments more clearly, it helps in learning how to form better arguments and become more aware of bad reasoning. You and the other members can discuss in whatever form you like, and usually I wouldn't request a formal argument, I've just got an inclination towards it making your own fallacies more obvious.
If your argument is sound and valid in it's normal context then the formal argument will be more of a restructuring than a formulation.
Aside form that there are a few obvious advantages to a formal argument:
1. It is easier to evaluate in it's full context (coherency, efficiency)
2. Premises that might go unnoticed as assertions are picked up on (soundness)
3. Fallacies and false premises are more easily spotted (soundness)
4. it is much easier to determine if the conclusion follows from the premises. (validity)
Given your confidence that you're correct I'd assumed that you already have something like a mental map augment in your head, this is a good way to examine it.
.
