Argument against Intelligent Design

[snowtracks]

To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

*Must have the greatest event in the universe’s history and even before. First thought: that would be most ginormously interesting.

So a bunch credulity and backwards thinking is your argument ......Sad

So after you asked them, did they acknowledge that naturalism was the most reasonable explanation?

[Nay_Sayer]

So a bunch credulity and backwards thinking is your argument ......Sad

So after you asked them, did they acknowledge that naturalism was the most reasonable explanation?

Ramen

[Pat Mustard]

So a bunch credulity and backwards thinking is your argument ......Sad

So after you asked them, did they acknowledge that naturalism was the most reasonable explanation?

Because it's the only idea that qualifies as a theory in ascientific sense. It both explains the current status and makes predictions which can be falsified.

Your cretinism does neither.

[Amarok]

So a bunch credulity and backwards thinking is your argument ......Sad

So after you asked them, did they acknowledge that naturalism was the most reasonable explanation?

Way to not refute my post that you whole post is a giant appeal to crediulity

---

So after you asked them, did they acknowledge that naturalism was the most reasonable explanation?

Because it's the only idea that qualifies as a theory in ascientific sense. It both explains the current status and makes predictions which can be falsified.

Your cretinism does neither.

And I point out once again the term "most reasonable " to him personnel credulity

[LostLocke]

To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

*Must have the greatest event in the universe’s history and even before. First thought: that would be most ginormously interesting.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When prosaic explanations adequately explain observed phenomena, there really isn't any reason to look for more esoteric answers.

When prosaic explanations fail to adequately explain observed phenomena, esoteric answers may be considered, but they need to explain the nuts and bolts of the phenomenon in question.

Boru

[madog]

To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

 

3. If a mind can exist without a brain, why design a brain?

[Pat Mustard]

To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

*Must have the greatest event in the universe’s history and even before. First thought: that would be most ginormously interesting.