(May 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(May 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: As has already been said, you asserted it....and you have not refuted it.
There is not need to refute an unsupported assertion.
I wouldn't think that concept needs explaining.
(May 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Argument from ignorance.Not at all. An argument from ignorance would be "I know no possible solution therefore it must be God". In contrast, I presented two possible solutions. Since one has more explanatory power, it is the favored solution.
[/quote]
It sure is an argument from ignorance. Basically what you presented is, "I can't think of a natural solution, therefore it must be transcendental order".
Not only that, you presented a dichotomy, when the actual list of possible solutions could be extremely long. What makes you think those are the only solutions?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
