The Argument From Design

[fr0d0]

Explain it to me without resorting to fallacies.

Poisoning the well fallacy

I understand that you believe any evidence of god would be against his nature.

Incorrect. I said only innapropriate evidence would be against his nature.

I believe is not equal to it is?

Smack on.

If there is a god, I want to have knowledge of that god.

Then you can't logically insist on innapropriate evidence as you keep doing.

Logical fail = logical fail.

You're demanding that your assumptions be taken as fact.

Don't be silly. I've repeatedly reinforced the correct position can only be belief via faith as described.

Is it surprising to you that I challenge these assumptions? Should we not ask questions like this? If not, why not?

No it's perfectly appropriate to challenge. You should listen though when someone tells you that you're barking up the wrong tree. That cat is up this tree over here! Stupid dog!

I absolutely cannot stand it when people use the words "knowledge" and "faith" as though they are interchangeable.

Depends on definition... but I think the way you're using the words there I would agree with you. That said, you're willfully forcing your own interpretation of 'knowledge onto other people when they mean another definition of the word. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it them tricking you?

what if your understanding of the god concept is not actually representative of the truth of the concept of god? Are we interested in the truth in this matter, or only those truths that would confirm your hypothesis? My entire argument, start to finish, consists of very little else.

Your argument seems to be to promote scientism.

There is very much that we do not know.

That's a grand claim from ignorance.

God could be in this vast expanse of ignorance. That we do not know now, does not mean we never could. You seem to be implying to me that this entire line of research is closed, that the final word has been spoken on the matter. This is unsatisfying to me. It would be the only area of human knowledge then that is not open to review (let that sink in). This may be the case, but I have never been given reason to believe it to be so.

The subject isn't closed: It's pretty much nailed. That isn't to say that it couldn't be improved upon.. I'm well up for that. And like I've said to you before, I'm not about ignoring other religious endeavour. That isn't to say that I find those satisfying... but I acknowledge that they are honest explorations of the same subject.