RE: Creationism
August 13, 2020 at 11:31 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2020 at 11:48 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I'm rejecting his argument because it's invalid. My being an atheist had no effect on how he chose to structure his argument. I feel like we're drifting into the territory of there being no facts to discuss, everythings subjective, my opinion your opinion his opinion, etc etc etc. Another riff on "if my pet metaphysician can't prove himself right, you at least can't prove him wrong".
The presence of a god in his conclusion is a textbook non sequitur. So much so that it's been charitably argued that he didn't really intend for it to be taken as a statement in his argument. In the broader view, all cosmological arguments fundamentally rely on something we contend to be a logical fallacy. Parts and wholes, the idea that if some part of x has an attribute, that must also be a binding attribute of x. So, you tell me, how does my or anyone else's atheism influence this assessment of the structure of a logical argument? Would you be more comfortable if I explained that the first people to point these things out were christians, themselves?
Surely not, because you don't actually believe that the fact of whether or not an argument adheres to the constraints of logical thought is dependent on the fact of whether the person listening believes in gods, or doesn't. You don't believe that telling me what some people say™ is a truthmaking argument, because you know that some people can and have been wrong. I get that you chalk some of this up to a meaningful subjectivity - but just because two students answer the same math question different ways, doesn't mean that neither of them can be right.
...I assume, ofc.
The presence of a god in his conclusion is a textbook non sequitur. So much so that it's been charitably argued that he didn't really intend for it to be taken as a statement in his argument. In the broader view, all cosmological arguments fundamentally rely on something we contend to be a logical fallacy. Parts and wholes, the idea that if some part of x has an attribute, that must also be a binding attribute of x. So, you tell me, how does my or anyone else's atheism influence this assessment of the structure of a logical argument? Would you be more comfortable if I explained that the first people to point these things out were christians, themselves?
Surely not, because you don't actually believe that the fact of whether or not an argument adheres to the constraints of logical thought is dependent on the fact of whether the person listening believes in gods, or doesn't. You don't believe that telling me what some people say™ is a truthmaking argument, because you know that some people can and have been wrong. I get that you chalk some of this up to a meaningful subjectivity - but just because two students answer the same math question different ways, doesn't mean that neither of them can be right.
...I assume, ofc.
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!
