No I don't give up, I always knew it was an appeal to ignorance, but it's still a strong argument, because if we can't think of reasons for x and y, then it seems there not to be any reasons. Therefore it's a very strong argument. But people concluded there must be a Creator before because they couldn't think of how complexity in life could have emerged from natural processes. It was like "how did this all happen.." 'we can't think of any reason but a Creator/Designer" "therefore a Creator/Designer". Now this argument is similarly saying "how can...." appealing to the fact we can't think of any reason for a benevolent being to create such and such, therefore there is no reason. That is an appeal to ignorance. It doesn't make the argument weak, because the premises still seem to be true. It just humbles it to an extent and makes it a very strong argument, but not a knock out one.
I myself am not satisfied with "I don't know nor do I have to...", rather I want to exhaust all possible explanations. I'm not satisfied with "The Lord ways are mysterious".
Which is why I made this thread.
I myself am not satisfied with "I don't know nor do I have to...", rather I want to exhaust all possible explanations. I'm not satisfied with "The Lord ways are mysterious".
Which is why I made this thread.