666...the Devils Moving Average

"1) It is a good design. "

Empty assertion. Explain why.
I explained why it is not.
axeman
______________________________________

I did explain why in the instances I cited it is a good design. It is disengenious to discredit an actual example with vague generalities. You either didn't read it or are operating from the juvenile skeptic mindset.

_______________________________________
1) Fallacy: Poisoning the well.
2) Identify the strawman.
_______________________________________

You are operating from a poisoned well that you have created and we are just pointing that out.
You limit the creator to your self imposed limitations and then attack Him for not livng up to your standards.

_____________________________________
You admit there are defects. Defects are a sign of intelligence?
_______________________________________

If I put a governor on a engine to keep it from overspeeding and destroying itself that is not intelligent in your book.

___________________________________________

1) Fallacy: Posioning the well.
2) Empty assertion. Prove there is a greator purpose.

_________________________________________

1. Already answered the poisoning the well.
2. There is greater purpose in keeping the gene pool diverse, you better read it again.

______________________________________________

"3. No mistake, only on your part to demand to see things as you "

Empty assertion.
Prove that defective animals were designed by an intelligent creator.

________________________________________

No empty assertion you do demand to be shown things only as you see them.
 
At least the ID guys, Deists, theists, pantheist, panspermiaists, etc. all have a viable model to explain why they are alive instead of just saying, "Well, I guess I'm just dumb and lucky that I don't have a couple thousand bullet holes in me."
 
Ditto is correct.

1) Assumes the supernatural exists. Science makes no statement.
2) Big Bang theory and supporting evidence
3) Evolution/abiogenesis theory and supporting evidence

peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

******************************************
Attacking science IN NO WAY constitutes evidence for the
ID hypothesis. So what IS the evidence for ID?
******************************************
I say "ditto". Attacking religion and the supernatural in no way
constitutes evidence for the materialism hypothesis. So what
is the evidence for materialism in the three areas I have outlined:

1. The supernatural
2. The origin of the universe
3. The origin of life
More...
 
Your argument is like this: "There can't be the supernatural, because I don't believe in the supernatural."

You then dismiss all references to the supernatural as authoritative as if you had exhaustively dealt with the subject.

I ask these questions:

1. Do you know that all poltergiest acivity is fabricated? No!
2. Do you know that all UFO activity is non-spiritual in nature? No!
3. Do you know that all Chrisitan healings are fictitious? No!
4. Do you know that there is no demon possession? No!
5. Do you know that there is no levitation? No!
6. Do you know that there are no legitimate near death experiences? No!

Yet you insistt that we should just take your word for it, that the several billion people on planet earth that have had supernatural experiences are all just victims of "fables", "mythology" and their "brains playing tricks".

The truth is you don’t know and will not admit it. You simply have a theory that cannot explain the most basic phenomenon that we see on planet earth.
 
And here is what I predict the next strategy is: you will cuss and swear and rail against God and then say, "See God didn't strike me dead!?"

This has been your typical "proof" that the supernatural does not exist. Then you say, "I spent several years searching for evidence of the spiritual."

So let's see: I'm supposed to take your word, someone who is clearly biased against all supernatural explanations, against the word and experiences of several billion people?

Hmmm…I wonder what I’ll pick.
 
You pretty much totaly reject the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible. (I say pretty much because I believe you did admit that it accurately stated that the Jews exist) However there is a vast amount of scientific evidence (archeological, historical, radiometric dating, etc) that the Bible is authentic and reliable to a high degree of accuracy. According to your poisoned well position none of this is admissable which is ridiculous.

The scriptures lay out a model or plan fairly plainly and in many cases give the reasons why. When this is totally rejected then the obvious defence is to go after the skeptic and his so called evidence. We can lay out the plan and the reasons many times but after a while if they are continuously rejected in the face of supporting evidence that the scriptures are reliable then the only other alternative is to attack the evidence of the skeptic. Most of the attacks on the scriptures result from faulty interpretation or distortion.
 
1) "I did explain why in the instances I cited it is a good design

Complete dodge.
You did not explain why having the optic nerves in front
of photo receptors is a good design. You ran off and started
talking about all kinds of other stuff you consider a good
design but completely DODGED my original example.

2) Doubter original statement:"Here you are again not seeing things as they are but as you are. Since you totally reject the creator and His word that tells why He created things in the way He did you are creating a straw man to attack. We are rejecting your limited and prejudiced reality."

Axe: Poisoning the well.

Douber reply: "You are operating from a poisoned well that you have created and we are just pointing that out.
You limit the creator to your self imposed limitations and then attack Him for not livng up to your standards."


1) How did I poison my own well? Do you know what this fallacy is? You are basically claiming that I am simply rejecting
things because I am biased. This is not an argument.
You must SHOW where I am wrong, not just claim it.

2) What strawman? I am assuming a supremely intelligent god here. What definition of god did I weaken so that I could
attack it more easily??? None. How did I limit god? I didnt.

I merely pointed out an obvious flaw, and that it does not
gel with the idea of a supremely intelligent god.


3) Axe:Empty assertion.
Prove that defective animals were designed by an intelligent creator.

Doubter replies:
" No empty assertion you do demand to be shown things only as you see them. "


Again you poison the well.
I demand nothing but a REASON. Provide one, instead of
just making unsupported statements and poisoning the well.
The burden of proof is on you, if you assert that these
animals with obvious defects were designed by a supremely
intelligent creator.


peace

axeman






Quote from Doubter:

"1) It is a good design. "

Empty assertion. Explain why.
I explained why it is not.
axeman
______________________________________

I did explain why in the instances I cited it is a good design. It is disengenious to discredit an actual example with vague generalities. You either didn't read it or are operating from the juvenile skeptic mindset.

_______________________________________
1) Fallacy: Poisoning the well.
2) Identify the strawman.
_______________________________________

You are operating from a poisoned well that you have created and we are just pointing that out.
You limit the creator to your self imposed limitations and then attack Him for not livng up to your standards.

_____________________________________
You admit there are defects. Defects are a sign of intelligence?
_______________________________________

If I put a governor on a engine to keep it from overspeeding and destroying itself that is not intelligent in your book.

___________________________________________

1) Fallacy: Posioning the well.
2) Empty assertion. Prove there is a greator purpose.

_________________________________________

1. Already answered the poisoning the well.
2. There is greater purpose in keeping the gene pool diverse, you better read it again.

______________________________________________

"3. No mistake, only on your part to demand to see things as you "

Empty assertion.
Prove that defective animals were designed by an intelligent creator.

________________________________________

No empty assertion you do demand to be shown things only as you see them.
More...
 
Your asking me to prove a negative.

Can you prove im not god? NO.
Can you prove the earth DIDNT shoot out my butt last year? NO.

Do you even understand why asking someone to prove
a negative is so meaningless?

This is a typical theist reply.
They fail to understand where the burden of proof lies.

I can come up with an unlimited number of questions
in the form of:

Can you prove that [ so and so ] DOESNT eixist?
The answer is always NO.

What does it mean? What weight does it carry?
Answer: Zippo, nada, worthless question.


"You then dismiss all references to the supernatural as authoritative as if you had exhaustively dealt with the subject."

Wrong again. I dismiss it because of a complete lack of evidence.


"Yet you insistt that we should just take your word for it"
I do no such thing.


"The truth is you don’t know and will not admit it. "

False again.
I ask you again. Can you prove the earth didnt shoot outta
my butt yesterday? NO.

Do you ADMIT that you dont know?? :D
You have to, if your honest.

I readily admit that I cannot prove a negative, BECAUSE
proving a negative is simply impossible and meaningless.
(Caveat: Outside of formal math, etc )


Proving a negative typically requires an exhaustive search
of the enitre universe and switches the burden of proof
from the person who asserted it, to ME.

If you assert. You must back it up.
You cannot dodge the burden of proof by asking someone to
prove something is NOT true.


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Your argument is like this: "There can't be the supernatural, because I don't believe in the supernatural."

You then dismiss all references to the supernatural as authoritative as if you had exhaustively dealt with the subject.

I ask these questions:

1. Do you know that all poltergiest acivity is fabricated? No!
2. Do you know that all UFO activity is non-spiritual in nature? No!
3. Do you know that all Chrisitan healings are fictitious? No!
4. Do you know that there is no demon possession? No!
5. Do you know that there is no levitation? No!
6. Do you know that there are no legitimate near death experiences? No!

Yet you insistt that we should just take your word for it, that the several billion people on planet earth that have had supernatural experiences are all just victims of "fables", "mythology" and their "brains playing tricks".

The truth is you don’t know and will not admit it. You simply have a theory that cannot explain the most basic phenomenon that we see on planet earth.
More...
 
"So let's see: I'm supposed to take your word,"

I ask no such thing.


" someone who is clearly biased against all supernatural explanations,"

False again.

I simply have found NO rational reason to accept
anything supernatural, and you are labeling me biased because of it.

This is like labeling a scientist as BIASED for not believing
the earth is flat.

My entire base of knowledge does NOT, in any way, point
towards ANYTHING supernatural, and THAT is why I do
not believe in it. It has nothing to do with bias.


" against the word and experiences of several billion people?"

Majority belief does not make it true.
Certainly you know this???

Do I really need to explain this to you?
I don't think so. So i'm not sure why you
would post something you cannot rely on.


peace

axeman





Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

And here is what I predict the next strategy is: you will cuss and swear and rail against God and then say, "See God didn't strike me dead!?"

This has been your typical "proof" that the supernatural does not exist. Then you say, "I spent several years searching for evidence of the spiritual."

So let's see: I'm supposed to take your word, someone who is clearly biased against all supernatural explanations, against the word and experiences of several billion people?

Hmmm…I wonder what I’ll pick.
More...
 
" According to your poisoned well position none of this is admissable which is ridiculous."

I have no idea what your talking about.
I don't think you understand what the fallacy of poisoning
the well IS, and are applying it incorrectly.
The above statement doesn't make any sense.


peace

axeman


Quote from Doubter:

You pretty much totaly reject the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible. (I say pretty much because I believe you did admit that it accurately stated that the Jews exist) However there is a vast amount of scientific evidence (archeological, historical, radiometric dating, etc) that the Bible is authentic and reliable to a high degree of accuracy. According to your poisoned well position none of this is admissable which is ridiculous.

The scriptures lay out a model or plan fairly plainly and in many cases give the reasons why. When this is totally rejected then the obvious defence is to go after the skeptic and his so called evidence. We can lay out the plan and the reasons many times but after a while if they are continuously rejected in the face of supporting evidence that the scriptures are reliable then the only other alternative is to attack the evidence of the skeptic. Most of the attacks on the scriptures result from faulty interpretation or distortion.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top