RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
February 26, 2020 at 9:21 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2020 at 9:21 am by R00tKiT.)
(February 25, 2020 at 3:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: And, what would it take for you to acknowledge an argument from ignorance fallacy? There are things on this planet that appear designed, but are not designed.
I would suggest you start by defining "designed" as you're using it here, just to make sure you're not including "directly seeing the designer" in the definition. In which case it's automatic for you to reject any argument from design.
(February 25, 2020 at 3:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Therefore, the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of actual design.
Again, it seems the only thing that would convince you of design is witnessing the design process, you are excluding any argument starting from precise laws of chemistry/physics that led to the things you think they only have the appearance of design. And the existence of laws do warrant a lawgiver.
And it took a lot of damn conditions for things to even have the appearance of design. That's what you're not getting.
(February 25, 2020 at 5:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If you say so...there are two possible ways that all of that true stuff can be. One of them is absent any god. That makes god unnecessary.
The true staff as a whole warrants an explanation, if you remove god you're not really left with any good hypothesis.
If something always existed there are two ways only : a entity that always existed or some infinite regress.
(February 25, 2020 at 5:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Do you really reject the anthropic principle? Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed? Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?
I don't think that you've thought this through. Not enough to convince someone that your fairy tales are credible..and certainly not enough to convince someone to join your club, if you managed that.
I don't reject it, it's a meaningless principle to me. "We exist therefore the universe made it possible for us to exist" is really nothing.
The anthropic principle in its stronger form states : " The universe must make our existence possible ", and this already supposes a deity, I think.
