Pull your head of out the sand and deal with the lack of facts in your belief system.
<img src=http://psychmatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sand1.gif>
<img src=http://psychmatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sand1.gif>
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
You ignore them, just so you can refuse to address them.
That's what atheists do.
That's the thing isn't it. I didn't ignore, so you're stuck with making that absurd comment.
There is no reasonable argument for intelligent design so all you've done in defense of it is attack science and then attack the messenger.
Science proves evolution so you deny the science that does so. There is a lot of proven science that supports reasonable argument for abiogenesis, a subject which I didn't bring up in the first place. So again, all you can do is deny the science and then attack the messenger
What is it that makes you feel that need to be so extremist in defense of ridiculous things like ID and creationism that it takes you to say stuff way past the point of absurdity.
Yes, you did ignore.
You have no fact of chance, no proof of chance, no discovered law or force of chance.
Take away chance, and your world crumbles.
You have no fact of chance, no proof of chance, no discovered law or force of chance.
Take away chance, and your world crumbles.
Quote from stu:
That's the thing isn't it. I didn't ignore, so you're stuck with making absurd comments.
There is no reasonable argument for intelligent design so all you've done in defense of it is attack science and then attack the messenger.
Science proves evolution so you deny the science that does so. There is a lot of proven science that supports reasonable argument for abiogenesis, a subject which I didn't bring up in the first place. So again, all you can do is deny the science and then attack the messenger
What is it that makes you feel that need to be so extremist in defense of ridiculous things like ID and creationism that it takes you to say stuff way past the point of absurdity.
No I didn't ignore the question of chance.
Now you're even denying stuff posted in the thread.
But then your world has already crumbled into denial.
Now you're even denying stuff posted in the thread.
But then your world has already crumbled into denial.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Yes, you did ignore.
You have no fact of chance, no proof of chance, no discovered law or force of chance.
Take away chance, and your world crumbles.
Do you know what non changing fact and proof of chance would be?
(no, you can't claim ignorance of non chance as a proof of chance).
Seriously think about it and get back to me to explain chance as an independent existence, as a causal force, a fixed and immutable law...not simply a lack of information of, or a lack of a vision of non chance...i.e. design.
(no, you can't claim ignorance of non chance as a proof of chance).
Seriously think about it and get back to me to explain chance as an independent existence, as a causal force, a fixed and immutable law...not simply a lack of information of, or a lack of a vision of non chance...i.e. design.
Quote from Ricter:
Uhh, what?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Do you know what non changing fact and proof of chance would be?
(no, you can't claim ignorance of non chance as a proof of chance).
Seriously think about it and get back to me to explain chance as an independent existence, as a causal force, a fixed and immutable law...not simply a lack of information of, or a lack of a vision of non chance...i.e. design.
Well, sure, we can imagine the possibility of some entity generating in advance, for example, the outcome of all coin tosses which will ever be made.
Eliminate the concept of order and design, and try to give a coherent explanation of chance.
In other words, explain the concept of chance so that chance exists independent of the concept of order.
I think you will find that it is not terribly easy. It is easy to understand design and order, and the lack of design and order is easy to understand...but a force of chance?
A lack of something is not an existence in itself. It is not a power or force in itself. A lack is just a lack...and the most plausible and natural explanation is order and design. It doesn't mean that it can't be chance and has to be design...but what really is most reasonable to assume? Only the atheist forces himself to assume what is most unnatural, i.e. that chance is causal.
So called chance happenings are an admission of ignorance of order and design.
If you came across a pot, a glazed clay pot, would you ever actually think that the atoms and sub atomic particles and nature would by chance assemble themselves into what you know as a pot?
In other words, explain the concept of chance so that chance exists independent of the concept of order.
I think you will find that it is not terribly easy. It is easy to understand design and order, and the lack of design and order is easy to understand...but a force of chance?
A lack of something is not an existence in itself. It is not a power or force in itself. A lack is just a lack...and the most plausible and natural explanation is order and design. It doesn't mean that it can't be chance and has to be design...but what really is most reasonable to assume? Only the atheist forces himself to assume what is most unnatural, i.e. that chance is causal.
So called chance happenings are an admission of ignorance of order and design.
If you came across a pot, a glazed clay pot, would you ever actually think that the atoms and sub atomic particles and nature would by chance assemble themselves into what you know as a pot?
Quote from Ricter:
Well, sure, we can imagine the possibility of some entity generating in advance, for example, the outcome of all coin tosses which will ever be made.