(December 9, 2015 at 9:34 pm)SteveII Wrote: Evie-- thank you for your short glib answers.
Each argument contains premises built on evidence and observations. A conclusion can be drawn. It may not even be a certainty--perhaps just a preponderance of the evidence. Note the word evidence used several times.
Noting that there have been thousands of books on a subject is not an argument from authority. I was perhaps unclear in my meaning of my sentence. I was pointing out that unless you have read extensively on the subject and have some new insight previously not thought of, you saying so does not solve the debate.
I have heard of evolution. Have they figured out the origin of life and irreducible complexity yet? How about how/why consciousness exists.
What miracles lack evidence? Are you saying that there never what a miracle? How do you know that?
It doesn't matter if the premise is built on evidence or even if its true, if it doesn't lead to the conclusion then its irrelevant. That's like saying Premise 1: I'm holding a red pen, Premise 2: the pen contains red ink, Conclusion: God. Both premises are true and can be proven but they don't prove god. They must presuppose a god, they are trying to use their conclusion to prove their premises instead of the other way around.
