RE: Is atheism a scientific perspective?
December 27, 2016 at 7:46 pm
(This post was last modified: December 27, 2016 at 7:49 pm by AAA.)
(December 27, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Astreja Wrote:(December 27, 2016 at 7:04 pm)AAA Wrote: I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.
Well, seeing as I've programmed computers and built and rebuilt computers and installed PROMs in computers and soldered computer components and etched circuit boards and attended an Intel seminar on the 8086 microprocessor, I'm calling argumentum ex rectum on your attempt to dodge the burden of proof in this instance.
Congratulations. How about your car? Do you design those? Do you know how it was designed? The point is that we don't have to know how something was designed to rationally infer that it was.
(December 27, 2016 at 7:39 pm)comet Wrote:(December 27, 2016 at 7:04 pm)AAA Wrote: I don't see a receding pocket of ignorance, I see a continuous decline in possible alternative explanations.
I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.
beliefs that provide a mechanism and prediction are more valid then those that don't and "lack belief".
Well I could put forth a mechanism, but I have no way of knowing if it's right. The designer linked nucleotides together in a laboratory, then built enzymes by ligating amino acids. Then the designer surrounded it with a phospholipid bylayer and let it go.
Just as it is impossible for me to know the mechanism of design, it is impossible for you to tell me the order of mutations that have led to your genome. The question you guys are demanding an answer to is impossible. How could we ever assess that type of historical claim.
