The problem is you can't use a theory to support yet another theory.
A theory is an idea or a concept that may or may not be true. To support a theory you cite facts that comport with that belief which is considered evidence in favor of your belief (or hypothesis). You don't improve your lot to offer yet another unproven idea in support of your hypothesis since the theory your offering is also suspect.
Who made an unjustified exemption?
Secondly I think its a red herring because I don't believe the folks pining for some other option actually believe that the universe was caused by some circumstance that would be neither design or plan, they're just running interference to obfuscate the issue. I suspect your actual take on this is that mindless forces without plan or design caused the universe to exist and life is just the accidental by product or the laws of physics. I suspect this is exactly what most atheists think. So why hide and obfuscate. I don't raise objections I myself don't actually beileve in. Its seems disengenous some folks do.
No one is actually offering evidence that the universe and life could be the result of some cause that was neither planned or by happenstance, they just want to argue its a false dichotomy based only on hypothetical scenarios that they don't actually believe either. There is a saying among lawyers, when you have the facts in a case you argue the facts, when you don't you argue smoke and mirrors.
Want to take a stab at explaining that?
Why does nature seem to act as if it is compelled by a set or rules?
If any dichotomy appears to be false on the face of it the bolded statement above does seeing how it's contradictory. If I made that statement I'd be hounded from here to kingdom come. By the way I agree humans do project their own nature into things which is in part why the methodology of science was created.
Correct most atheists would opine the laws we observe are not some blueprint the universe had to follow but are just patterns of regularity we happen to observe...unless they are raising an objection for instance to the argument of fine tuning in which case they do raise the objection that maybe in fact the laws of nature do have to be as we observe them, not that they actually believe that... but just because they don't actually believe something is true that's no reason not to raise it as an objection anyway and will argue the objection should carry weight even though they themselves don't believe the objection. I call it bullshit but thats just me.
You must be using the atheist dictionary again where words take on whatever meaning is convenient at the moment. What the dictionary mistakenly seems to think that necessity means is when something or someone is forced to do something by compulsion.
Except in my case I'm not uncomfortable at all. If the Creator was created then theism is still correct.
Quote:Why not?
A theory is an idea or a concept that may or may not be true. To support a theory you cite facts that comport with that belief which is considered evidence in favor of your belief (or hypothesis). You don't improve your lot to offer yet another unproven idea in support of your hypothesis since the theory your offering is also suspect.
Quote:Except it's not special pleading because that fallacy applies when an unjustified exemption to the rule has been made and your rule about design and happenstance being the only two possibilities has never been accepted.
Who made an unjustified exemption?
Secondly I think its a red herring because I don't believe the folks pining for some other option actually believe that the universe was caused by some circumstance that would be neither design or plan, they're just running interference to obfuscate the issue. I suspect your actual take on this is that mindless forces without plan or design caused the universe to exist and life is just the accidental by product or the laws of physics. I suspect this is exactly what most atheists think. So why hide and obfuscate. I don't raise objections I myself don't actually beileve in. Its seems disengenous some folks do.
Quote:Then all I can say is that you are the one being disingenuous. There are atheists who take that position and others who take a different one and provide justification for it. They have given no evidence for you to assume that they actually don't believe what they are arguing for. Its about as deluded as saying that atheists are just angry at god.
No one is actually offering evidence that the universe and life could be the result of some cause that was neither planned or by happenstance, they just want to argue its a false dichotomy based only on hypothetical scenarios that they don't actually believe either. There is a saying among lawyers, when you have the facts in a case you argue the facts, when you don't you argue smoke and mirrors.
Quote:On the basis that what makes sense and what doesn't itself is derived from the laws of nature.
Want to take a stab at explaining that?
Why does nature seem to act as if it is compelled by a set or rules?
Quote:Because humans tend to project their own nature onto things where it is not applicable. Nature is not compelled to follow a set of rules nor is it free to act as it pleases. Those concepts apply only to conscious entities - which nature is not.
If any dichotomy appears to be false on the face of it the bolded statement above does seeing how it's contradictory. If I made that statement I'd be hounded from here to kingdom come. By the way I agree humans do project their own nature into things which is in part why the methodology of science was created.
Correct most atheists would opine the laws we observe are not some blueprint the universe had to follow but are just patterns of regularity we happen to observe...unless they are raising an objection for instance to the argument of fine tuning in which case they do raise the objection that maybe in fact the laws of nature do have to be as we observe them, not that they actually believe that... but just because they don't actually believe something is true that's no reason not to raise it as an objection anyway and will argue the objection should carry weight even though they themselves don't believe the objection. I call it bullshit but thats just me.
Quote:That is just you and that's because you cannot comprehend that those two arguments are in fact the same. Nature is what it is. It does not conform to any external authority nor does it follow a set of blueprints. That is what necessity means.
You must be using the atheist dictionary again where words take on whatever meaning is convenient at the moment. What the dictionary mistakenly seems to think that necessity means is when something or someone is forced to do something by compulsion.
Quote:The fact that atheist does not believe in a creator or a creator's creator does not make the objection any less valid. The atheist is simply holding you to your own logic and showing how quickly you choose to commit a fallacy when confronted with the uncomfortable implications of your position.
Except in my case I'm not uncomfortable at all. If the Creator was created then theism is still correct.
