RE: The Argument From Design
August 5, 2011 at 2:19 pm
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I don't refuse to consider "anything". I refuse to consider a baseless assumption. In support of my argument I can and have provided you with evidence that you can weigh, and ultimately, decide for yourself. You have been unable to provide this in return. This is not a strength of your position. You allow that the entirety of the observable world is largely as we see it, but make one giant special plea at the very beginning. The plea for things unseen. What do you point to as evidence of the unseen? Apparently, the seen.
If you wish to maintain that there is such a thing, you could at least attempt to provide something other than god that belongs in that group, otherwise you have merely replaced the word "god" with "immaterial" in your premise. Your premise is identical to your conclusion in this argument. It is entirely circular. In short, you have no argument.
The Immaterial exists
God is immaterial
Ergo God exists
is equivalent to
God exists
God is immaterial
Ergo God exists
Furthermore: Were I to grant you that very special plea, you would still only be arguing for the deists god. Clearly not your intention. Argue for what you mean to prove. If you can show an example of any other thing that exists only in the immaterial. We could consider the immaterial honestly. If you could then show that this proposed thing was compatible with the christian concept of god, you will have advanced apologetics farther in one post than centuries worth of apologists before you.
Your argument that science cannot address your religion is identical in every regard. Give me an example of something other than your god that science is incapable of measuring or observing, directly or indirectly, in any way.
If you wish to maintain that there is such a thing, you could at least attempt to provide something other than god that belongs in that group, otherwise you have merely replaced the word "god" with "immaterial" in your premise. Your premise is identical to your conclusion in this argument. It is entirely circular. In short, you have no argument.
The Immaterial exists
God is immaterial
Ergo God exists
is equivalent to
God exists
God is immaterial
Ergo God exists
Furthermore: Were I to grant you that very special plea, you would still only be arguing for the deists god. Clearly not your intention. Argue for what you mean to prove. If you can show an example of any other thing that exists only in the immaterial. We could consider the immaterial honestly. If you could then show that this proposed thing was compatible with the christian concept of god, you will have advanced apologetics farther in one post than centuries worth of apologists before you.
Your argument that science cannot address your religion is identical in every regard. Give me an example of something other than your god that science is incapable of measuring or observing, directly or indirectly, in any way.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
