Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Show me the evidence of random ignorant chance, please.

While you are at it, show me the evidence that life came from non life.

Thanks.

p.s. Please stop with the creationsim Christian stuff, I'm not on their side.

As a self-contradicting concept of infinite regress, evidence of random ignorant chance would be intelligent design.

Whereas evolution is hard and factual evidence of the substantial reduction of random chance by natural selection.


Whilst I respectfully acknowledge your polite request, unfortunately it remains that intelligent design leads straight to creationism.

You believe in God don't you, but call it Totality with a capitalized T?
You believe everything was and is intelligently designed and created by the actions of God or Totality as you call it, separate from and in the face of any natural, understandable, testable and knowable process?

Someone having strong belief in a supernatural power that created everything that intelligently designs, controls human destiny and has no explanations, call it God or Totality whatever, is reasonably called an intelligent design creationist.

The "Christian stuff" is just their own version of what is fundamentally the same pointless inexplicable thing.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"It matters not one jot where life may have started, De Duve knows it didn't start with intelligent design."

Did De Duve say he knows it, but did not declare it?

LOL!!!

In any case, it does matter where life may have started...obviously it matters to you, as you can't even say that design is just as likely as non design...as there is proof for neither.

Design is not intelligent design. That obviously doesn't matter to you.

Of course there is proof of design. Ignoring all the proven evidence that design isn't and needs not be intelligent, is obviously what matters to you.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Your descriptions are incorrect.

Quote from stu:

As a self-contradicting concept of infinite regress, evidence of random ignorant chance would be intelligent design.

Whereas evolution is hard and factual evidence of the substantial reduction of random chance by natural selection.


Whilst I respectfully acknowledge your polite request, unfortunately it remains that intelligent design leads straight to creationism.

You believe in God don't you, but call it Totality with a capitalized T?
You believe everything was and is intelligently designed and created by the actions of God or Totality as you call it, separate from and in the face of any natural, understandable, testable and knowable process?

Someone having strong belief in a supernatural power that created everything that intelligently designs, controls human destiny and has no explanations, call it God or Totality whatever, is reasonably called an intelligent design creationist.

The "Christian stuff" is just their own version of what is fundamentally the same pointless inexplicable thing.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"Of course there is proof of design."

Really?

Proof of design without knowledge of the designer?

But nature is programmed, but no programmer?

Quote from stu:

Design is not intelligent design. That obviously doesn't matter to you.

Of course there is proof of design. Ignoring all the proven evidence that design isn't and needs not be intelligent, is obviously what matters to you.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Your descriptions are incorrect.

that's it "Your desdriptions are incorrect"?

Then why not correct them in the interest of intelligent and ingenuous discussion?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Do you understand the difference between dualistic logic, and non dualistic logic?

Quote from killthesunshine:

that's it "Your desdriptions are incorrect"?

Then why not correct them in the interest of intelligent and ingenuous discussion?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Do you understand the difference between dualistic logic, and non dualistic logic?

i'm not sure will you give me a primer and how that would apply to your argument?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

The response, if reasonable would have been:

Yes, I understand.

or

No, I don't understand.

Quote from killthesunshine:

i'm not sure will you give me a primer and how that would apply to your argument?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

The response, if reasonable would have been:

Yes, I understand.

or

No, I don't understand.

i'm just not sure i may be familiar but i'm not a formal "logic" guy.

i reason by the seat of pants (for want of a better phrase)

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Yes, I have seen your attempts at reasoning from the seat of your pants.

I suggest you wipe your bottom after pooping...

Quote from killthesunshine:

i'm just not sure i may be familiar but i'm not a formal "logic" guy.

i reason by the seat of pants (for want of a better phrase)