The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

This is why we say your design-or-chance claim is a false dichotomy; you're claiming those are the only two choices, but there are many, many more even within the realm of established theoretical science that conform to neither of those definitions. You're setting up two choices and hoping that everyone else doesn't realize there are more, and now that you've very clearly had two of those additional possibilities explained to you, will you admit that you were mistaken?

No I'm not going to say I am mistaken because you offer two hypothetical scenarios which I doubt even you believe actually exist. In the long run though it doesn't matter what I think or what you think it's what the reasonable impartial person who weighs our respective arguments thinks that matters. And even though you declare the dichotomy false, I doubt any reasonable person would. In peoples every day life experiences they note that something happens unguided and unplanned in which we say it was happenstance or by chance that it occurred, other wise something happens intentionally because someone planned it or designed it to occur in a particular fashion. And why do you go to such rediculous extremes to deny what is common sense? Because you don't want to defend the consequences of your own belief, that we owe our existence either to intentional planning and design which you reject or to happenstance and serendipity which amazingly you also seem to reject but in fact I don't think you do reject that either. You just want to obfuscate and cloud the issue because that's what atheists do in defense of atheism.

Whether or not anybody believes in these alternative explanations is completely irrelevant. Your argument (ostensibly) depends on demonstrating the implausibility of alternative explanations to the one for which you are arguing acceptance (that the universe was designed). As a simple matter of logic, if you exclude them for any other reason than their being unsound and untrue explanations of the facts, then you have constructed an argument that is logically invalid, and its conclusions are therefore of necessity a non sequitur. If you fail to demonstrate their implausibility or otherwise account for these hypotheses on substantive and material grounds, your conclusions are worthless.


And no, "Atheists are disingenuous meanies" is not a valid argument against these other possibilities.