Saturday, August 11, 2012

Talking to a Brick Wall

I've had ongoing debates with a hominid online - a very deeply religious evangelical Christian. I'm not sure whether he's a troll or not. Below the fold is one such argument. 

Names have been changed to protect the guilty.

I admit that I can get caustic at times. I can definitely be polemic. If I wasn't biting my tough, I'd peel the paint off the walls.

Here's where this particular debate began. Keep in mind that multiple people are talking to this person, and I'm going to only address the him/me connection.

Christian: 
So the conclusion is definitely NOT:
Things created themselves.
What is the other OPTION?
Me:
"Well, this is called LOGIC."
Or observation. Demonstration is the only way to tell whether something is designed. 
"YES, there is evidence that EVERYTHING is MADE by a CREATOR!"

Such as? It is actual evidence that adheres to the standards of evidence, or is it just some logical fallacy that you're going to label as "evidence"?
Christian:
Bicycles, cars, houses, motorcycles, computer software systems, hardware devices and everything else which is not a pattern like ocean waves/currents, clouds, lightning, sand dunes etc. are actually CREATED... this implies the need of a CREATOR! 
This is NOT a LOGICAL fallacy. Naturalists love using terms like "LOGICAL FALLACY" when in fact an ILLOGICAL FALLACY would be to believe that things somehow made themselves... if you guys reject a CREATOR you have no other option than to BELIEVE an ILLOGICAL FALLACY.

I'd rather be accused of being LOGICAL than to be accused of refusing the use of COMMON SENSE or REASON by holding on to ridiculous ILLOGICAL FALLACIES...there is nothing close to a PARADOX here when it comes to your unscientific, fanatic, religious way of thinking or "philosophy"... but just common, atheistic, plain old ILLOGICAL FALLACIES!

[me], too many "Star-trek" movies or too many "comic" books are really becoming evident in your way of processing "data".
Me:
‎"Bicycles, cars, houses, motorcycles, computer software systems, hardware devices and everything else which is not a pattern like ocean waves/currents, clouds, lightning, sand dunes etc. are actually CREATED... this implies the need of a CREATOR!" 
No, it doesn't. It's a difficult topic because we already know, from observation of manufcature or education, which of these are designed or not. The real question is whether, given some unknown object X, if we can determine whether it was designed by asking some attributes about it. Sort of like playing 20 questions. 
It's even more difficult than that, since we probaly don't even agree on what's designed. I don't think trees are designed, but you probably do (if you're the standard creationist), so we can't even categorize different objects in order to discern what the attributes of design would be.
I know cars are created because I've seen them created. I've been told they're created. The only common attribute to design that I can discern would be that a particular object is built with an artificial non-natural substance, like plastic (assuming we're not counting natural rubber). But that would discount all living orgnaisms, because they aren't built with plastic, or any other known artificial substances - which I would agree makes sense, but you wouldn't. 
I'm curious HOW you think we can tell these are designed. How can you distinguish between recognizing these as designed due to previous knowledge versus perceiving an attribute that's indicitate of design? And what would those attributes be? 
"This is NOT a LOGICAL fallacy."
Yes it is - it's a non-sequitur. You've got some bias of category, and you're begging the question. 
"Naturalists love using terms like "LOGICAL FALLACY" when in fact an ILLOGICAL FALLACY would be to believe that things somehow made themselves..." 
Could you cite an example? I don't know what you're talking about here. We'd both agree that rain water streaming into a hole would form a puddle, but neither of us would consider that "creating itself" - but the formation of stars, planets, amino acids, proteins, etc, would be more an end result of natural processes than some thing creating itself. I'm afraid that's just a misrepresentation. 
"if you guys reject a CREATOR you have no other option than to BELIEVE an ILLOGICAL FALLACY. " 
False dichotomy. Another logical fallacy. You've established a false dilemma and are using that as a basis for another argument. 
"I'd rather be accused of being LOGICAL than to be accused of refusing the use of COMMON SENSE" 
Common sense is bullshit. Common sense told us that the world was flat. Science is constnatly contradicting common sense, because our basic intuitions about the world are frequently flawed. In the battle between common sense and science, science typically wins. 
"or REASON by holding on to ridiculous ILLOGICAL FALLACIES..." 
That's the point. You aren't using reason. You're an unending source of common logical fallacies. You've yet to provide any evidence to support a God, which loosely translates into being unreasonable. You can't give a valid reason for believing in God. Hell, even the Christian doctrine says this is how it's supposed to be. You're just supposed to believe - regardless. 
"there is nothing close to a PARADOX here when it comes to your unscientific, fanatic, religious way of thinking or "philosophy"... but just common, atheistic, plain old ILLOGICAL FALLACIES!" 
Yes, it's very religious of me to ask for sufficient scientific evidence. I'm not sure you're clear on the concept.

"[me], too many "Star-trek" movies or too many "comic" books are really becoming evident in your way of processing "data"."

Perhaps! At least it is some kind of processing data.
Me: 
It'd point out, in addition, that grouping Designed vs Not-Designed as (Organisms, Human machines) vs (not organisms and not human machines) also is a potential category error. At that point, you're not comparing designed versus not-designed. You're comparing organisms versus not-organisms. That's going to lead one to lots of odd biases of comparison.
Me:
"If you are talking about God the Creator of all things an "illogical" fallacy would be to think that you can have a creator of "all things" and still consider the existence of another creator which was not created by this "creator of all things"." 
The whole notion is special pleading. That's kind of the point. You've created an arbitrary stop gap for an uncomfortable concept that we might indeed have some kind of infinite regress - all without providing a shred of scientific evidence. 
"4 Who has ever accused you of being logical?
Read [me]'s last post." 
Well, to be fair, I wasn't referring to you exactly, but I didn't distinguish that point enough.

Christian:

‎//I'm curious HOW you think we can tell these are designed. How can you distinguish between recognizing these as designed due to previous knowledge versus perceiving an attribute that's indicitate of design? And what would those attributes be?// 
Information exists. Information has a source. The original source of all information is always a mind or an idea, only living entities have a mind or ideas, plans, blueprints or mental pictures of how something works or is going to be before the actual idea comes into existence. Information started somewhere with SOME-ONE and we see this in the things which are created to serve a certain function or purpose according to the plan for which the creator has established it. 
Jesus is the source of all information, He is the Alpha and the Omega , the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet which contains all knowledge within. Any thought we have can be described using the letters in our alphabet which form words, codes, phrases, INFORMATION...even the building blocks for life which is DNA contains digital codes, commands, instructions, information, or the language necessary for life to continue...do you know where this information came from? 
Do you know who is the source of this information? 
Do you know Jesus is also referred to as the Word of God? 
In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:1-5 (NKJV) 
And the Word (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (NKJV)
Me:
"Information exists. Information has a source." 
Sure. But that depends on what you mean by information, for one thing. Wait, are we presupposing out the gate that the source can't be natural? That's begging the question. 
"The original source of all information is always a mind or an idea," 
Please define what your meaning of "information", and demonstrate this. Keep in mind that you aren't making a claim that "most" information comes from a mind - rather that ALL information starts with a mind. That kind of claim would require omniscience to know. 
"only living entities have a mind or ideas, plans, blueprints or mental pictures of how something works or is going to be before the actual idea comes into existence." 
That we know of. Your argument, so far is one of those "logic God into existence" types, where the premises must be 100% demonstrably true before the argument can work, mind you. 
"Information started somewhere with SOME-ONE and we see this in the things which are created to serve a certain function or purpose according to the plan for which the creator has established it." 
How? Example? I looked out my backyard window into the forest. I'm not seeing this. This is again begging the question. You're assuming the answer you're trying to prove.

I can see that a waterfall operates in a certain way, but that's not necesarily evidence that it's supposed to work that way with some kind of purpose. It's a result of how the universe happens to work - chemistry, fluid dynamics and gravity. 
My request to you was to support your claim with reasoned argument and evidence that organisms, for example, are designed. So far, all you've done is asserted it, or asserted that it has a purpose, or conflated a function with purpose/intelligence while presupposing that function couldn't arive by natural means. 
[other person] is wrong. This isn't circular reasoning. This is a mile-wide Fujita-5 scale fucking tornado of reasoning. 
"Jesus is the source of all information, He is the Alpha and the Omega" 
Evidence please. You're doing exactly what I was warning you about in another parallel argument. We observe that life exists, and has what could be called "information". You are asserting that God/Jesus is the answer. You've accepted the burden of proof to demonstrate this claim is true. 
", the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet which contains all knowledge within." 
What? Have you gone insane? Well, no, I suppose that's true. The first and last letter of the Greek alphabet do actually contain all knowledge within - the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. 
"Any thought we have can be described using the letters in our alphabet which form words, codes, phrases, INFORMATION...even the building blocks for life which is DNA contains digital codes, commands, instructions, information, or the language necessary for life to continue..." 
Ah! Here we go! An Argument from Analogy! Yet another logical fallacy!
You see, the problem with arguments from analogies is that they assume that, because one is comparing A to B, that any chosen aspect of A is also shared in B.

For example, it's like saying:
* Hawks are birds
* Penguins are birds
* Since hawks can fly, therefore penguins can fly 
Well, no. It could be that penguins are our example of birds that can't fly. 
Likewise, you begged the question as to whether all information must necesarily come from a God - assuming that we're talking about the same defintion of information. It could be that DNA is our example of "information" that developed naturally. It's like a river - they don't have to be designed, but they do redirect water down a specific path in a stable and predictable way - yet they form on their own. 
You've painted yourself into a corner. To demonstrate that DNA/information couldn't arise naturally would require one to prove a negative - which is an impossible task. 
In addition, you still have the special pleading issue of God's information requirement - which is typically that he's the "first cause". 
"do you know where this information came from?" 
It's probably evolution. Gene duplication and point insertions, in regards to genetic mutations, have been observed to add information to genomes. There's no reason to require a supernatural guy in the sky to solve this mystery. 
"Do you know who is the source of this information?" 
You're assuming it's a "who". As I've explained, it could be a "what". 
"Do you know Jesus is also referred to as the Word of God?" 
Nope, I didn't know that. How is this relevant to anything? 
Did you know that James T. Kirk is also referred to as "Captain"? 
"In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 
John 1:1-5 (NKJV)
And the Word (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (NKJV)" 
Woo! More Bible verses!
Me:
[Responding to someone else] ‎"Back up your claim with scientific evidence, I don't know why you would be so reluctant to show proof of a Creator if you actually had it." 
What's more odd is that, while claiming that God is something you have to take on faith, then goes on to try to provide "evidence" anyway.
Me:
‎"In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:1-5 (NKJV)"


By the way - your bible quote is wrong. "(Jesus)" does not appear.
Christian:
//By the way - your bible quote is wrong. "(Jesus)" does not appear.// 
I know, [me], that is why I used parenthesis. 
If you keep reading the whole context in John 1:14 you will know it is talking about Jesus (that is if you read the whole chapter without jumping to conclusions after reading only this one verse): 
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

I'm glad you searched the scriptures even though you did not keep reading the whole context of John Chapter One to realize if the "'WORD"' refers to Jesus himself or not, this may be too much to ask for someone only interested in reading comic books...that is why I inserted the word "(Jesus)" assuming you would not take the time to read any further. Unfortunately I was right about your lack of interest in Scripture by displaying the attention span of a guy that is only interested in reading comic books with entertaining little drawings next to the texts.

Me:
‎"Unfortunately I was right about your lack of interest in Scripture by displaying the attention span of a guy that is only interested in reading comic books with entertaining little drawings next to the texts." 
Actually, yes, you're right. I don't care about scripture. I don't care about wild fantasy and delusion. I find the Bible to be mind numblingly boring and staggeringly immoral, and it genuinely frightens me that anyone takes this seriously. 
I care about reality. I care that I believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible - and the best way to accomplish that is through science. 
I find it incredibly typical of you to completely bypass my evisceration of your arguments and focus on the least important point (your alteration of the bible verses). 
This particular discussion started when you claimed that there was plenty of the evidence that everything was created. I asked "like what?", and added "Will it be something that's not a logical fallacy?", and sure enough, a tsunami of logical fallacies ravaged the landscape.

I got the tired Argument from Analogy, and explained in detail why it's in error. I was wondering if you could somehow manage to assemble any kind of argument or evidence that doesn't make baby logic cry.
Me:
What's truly sad is that these logical fallacies aren't just made up on the spot. I'm not just conjuring them out of thin air. They're universally recognized standard fallacies that go back thousands of years. They're not even obscure fallacies - they're the most common ones available in the repertoire.
Christian:
‎//I care about reality. I care that I believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible - and the best way to accomplish that is through science.// 
How do you know if the accounts registered in scripture are false according to science?
Scientific method is limited specially when it comes to undocumented events that happened 2000 years ago.

//I find it incredibly typical of you to completely bypass my evisceration of your arguments and focus on the least important point (your alteration of the bible verses).// 
In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 
Its not my fault you consider something in parenthesis as part of the original text and still fail to miss the whole point of the original context of the whole chapter. 
//This particular discussion started when you claimed that there was plenty of the evidence that everything was created. I asked "like what?", and added "Will it be something that's not a logical fallacy?", and sure enough, a tsunami of logical fallacies ravaged the landscape.//

ALL creation is evidence of a Creator unless you can show me one single example of something which was not created. Did you ever see anyone create a single grain of sand or a single drop of water? Do you have any examples of sources of information coming from something other than a mind?
Me:
"How do you know if the accounts registered in scripture are false according to science?" 
I know you've had the concept of the "Burden of Proof" explained to you before, but here goes again - the person making the claim has the burden to demonstrate that their claim is true. This doesn't just apply to religion. It applies to virtually everything in life, from car salesmen to criminal trials. 
The reason I don't accept many the claims of the Bible is because they haven't been demonstrated as true yet. 
Furthermore, my skepticism is proportional to the extraordinary nature of the claim. If it's something mundane like some guy tripping and falling over, I may just go ahead and accept that as true. If you claim that this guy pulled out a cloaking device and ran away at 100x the speed of light, I'm surely going to demand evidence. 
Claims in the Bible regarding cities are mundane. Claims about the existence of God, or about global floods with boats that have all species on the planet on them (all 5 or so billion of them), replicating 5 or 7 loaves of bread to feed 5000, etc, those are going to require some evidence. In fact, they're going to require A LOT of good evidence, because they violate many known scientific laws. That's not a great starting point in terms of trying to demonstrate one's claims. 
Also, I hope you're not still making that true-by-association error yet again. The fact that a referenced city in the Bible is demonstrably real doesn't prove God/Jesus's divinity any more than the existence of New York proves the existence of Spiderman. 
"Scientific method is limited specially when it comes to undocumented events that happened 2000 years ago. " 
That may be true. More to the point, though, is that we have no other demonstrably effective means to know. There are lots of things we don't know. The solution to that problem, however, isn't to just merely make shit up and call it true. 
If we have no means of evidence-based investigation into the occurrances 2000 years ago, then the answer is - "We don't know what happened" 
"In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." 
I know you believe this undemonstrated evidenceless assertion, but I can't believe it until it's backed up by sufficient evidence. Asserting the same lunatic claim over and over doesn't make it true. 
"Its not my fault you consider something in parenthesis as part of the original text and still fail to miss the whole point of the original context of the whole chapter." 
I didn't say that. I pointed out that you modified the quote from the original - that was about it. It wasn't even a very important point - but it's a typical creationist debate tactic to look for any opening they can use to avoid having to answer the tough questions - to distract from the fact that they have nothing. 
"ALL creation is evidence of a Creator unless you can show me one single example of something which was not created." 
Logical fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof
Logical fallacy: Begging the Question 
You've yet to demonstrate that anything, outside of human-built things, are created. You're merely asserting that as true. My original question was, in effect - what evidence do you have that shows that everything in created? I wanted evidence - not a restatement of a baseless evidenceless undemonstrated assertion. 
"Did you ever see anyone create a single grain of sand or a single drop of water?" 
No - that's why I consider them naturally occuring. 
"Do you have any examples of sources of information coming from something other than a mind?" 
Yes. DNA. Gene duplication. Point insertions. Genetics blows this line of thinking out of the water and into the next galaxy. 
Gene duplication produces new information with nothing but chemistry and physics. This is laboratory tested. 
Attached is one such study. And just to head off the objection at the pass - no, it's not the same thing as referencing the Bible. The key difference between the Bible and a science publication is that the Bible asserts things as true dogmatically - science publications are references to actual empirical evidence and can be replicated by anyone who wanted to do so. The whole point is to put these things up for peer review so others can pick out the flaws. You're not allowed to do that in religion.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf
Me:
‎"ALL creation is evidence of a Creator unless you can show me one single example of something which was not created." 
Actually, let me re-answer that, because I misread it a bit - so this is more of an augmented answer. 
You're asserting that everything is created - and the evidence for that is that everything exists.
I know you'd like to think it's evidence, but it doesn't qualify, because there's one major standard of evidence that it's colossally failing - exclusion. 
There's literally an infinite number of possibilities for why everything exists - many of which are natural causes, most of which we haven't even conceived of yet. Without additional evidence that distinguishes your assertion from the other infinity possibilities, the probability of your assertion being true is the same as the rest - near zero. 
It would be like noticing that my garbage backs in my garage were torn up and contents spread around. I come up with an explanation - an iridescent whale-elephant mircowave (IWEM) from a parallel dimension did it, with the following syllogism. 
  • I see that my garbage bags are torn open
  • I've defined iridescent whale-elephant microwaves from a parallel dimension to do things like tear open garbage bags
  • My garbage bags are torn open
  • Therefore, that is evidence that iridescent whale-elephant microwaves from a parallel dimension exists. 
Just change the words a bit, and we get:
  • I see that things exist.
  • I define "God" as that which creates everything.
  • Everything exists.
  • Therefore, there's your evidnece for "God"
Yes, that's how unfathomably weak your "evidence" is.
Christian:
‎//The fact that a referenced city in the Bible is demonstrably real doesn't prove God/Jesus's divinity any more than the existence of New York proves the existence of Spiderman.// 
There is already more than enough evidence for the existence of Jesus (Cristus) Christ the Messiah. 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christ
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/messiah
 Christian:
//You've yet to demonstrate that anything, outside of human-built things, are created. You're merely asserting that as true. My original question was, in effect - what evidence do you have that shows that everything in created? I wanted evidence - not a restatement of a baseless evidenceless undemonstrated assertion.// 
There is lots of evidence for things being created and not a single shred of evidence for things creating themselves. You are making an extraordinary claim by reasoning in a futile way and yet not providing any PROOF for things making themselves. You should be ashamed of yourself for shifting the burden of proof on me.

//There's literally an infinite number of possibilities for why everything exists// 
Do these involve proof for the existence of something without a creator?

//...many of which are natural causes, most of which we haven't even conceived of yet.//

Yet we only have proof for things existing because of a Creator. 
//Without additional evidence that distinguishes your assertion from the other infinity possibilities, the probability of your assertion being true is the same as the rest - near zero.// 
My assertion is the only one with additional evidence which distinguishes it from the other infinity of IMPOSSIBILITIES you are proposing without providing a single shred of evidence:

My evidence for a Creator is creation itself and the documented life of the Creator, there is no shred of evidence for your ridiculous claims as of things possibly creating themselves, truly these ideas you have are not based on observable scientific methods. You really have faith in your futile way of °reasoning°.

//You've yet to demonstrate that anything, outside of human-built things, are created.// 
Really? I can easily demonstrate that anything outside human built things are created because they already exist and it has been demonstrated through scientific methodology that things cant happen without a cause. I did not know something could exist without being created unless we are talking about the cause for all causes in all of creation (the universe), visible or invisible.
Me:
‎"There is lots of evidence for things being created" 
Like WHAT? This is seriously the 3rd or 4th time I've asked. All I've gotten so far are logical fallacies. 
"and not a single shred of evidence for things creating themselves." 
Who do you think is saying that things create themselves? I've already addressed this, that you apparently didn't read. We both agree that puddles will form after it rains - neither of us thinks that an intelligent entity is making this happen - it's just physics, and neither of us asserts that the puddle is forming itself. 
This third category is where the formation of stars/planets/moons and even life falls into. To continue to assert that this constitutes "creating itself" from here on out will simply be you lying, because no one is asserting it.

" You are making an extraordinary claim by reasoning in a futile way and yet not providing any PROOF for things making themselves. You should be ashamed of yourself for shifting the burden of proof on me." 
You are a bald faced liar. You are lying through your teeth. I've never said anything like this.
What I would say is that we observe that things exist. I don't know whether a tree, for instance, is designed. You, however, are asserting that it is designed/created, above and beyond what we observe, therefore, you have assumed the burden of proof. 
"//There's literally an infinite number of possibilities for why everything exists//
Do these involve proof for the existence of something without a creator? " 
You mean like God? With infinite possibilities, there'd be some with and without creator-less and/or cause/causeless things. 
The real question is - what does the evidence indicate? 
"//...many of which are natural causes, most of which we haven't even conceived of yet.//
Yet we only have proof for things existing because of a Creator." 
No, we don't. We have plenty of proof of things existing. We have proof that some of those things are created, either by us or animals like beavers. 
I've repeatedly asked for what that evidence would be. Only logical fallacies followed. 
"//Without additional evidence that distinguishes your assertion from the other infinity possibilities, the probability of your assertion being true is the same as the rest - near zero.//
My assertion is the only one with additional evidence which distinguishes it from the other infinity of IMPOSSIBILITIES you are proposing without providing a single shred of evidence:" 
I'm sorry, but you don't get to merely dismiss other possibilities by decree. That's incredibly dishonest. Especially when your assertion is so absurd. 
"My evidence for a Creator is creation itself and the documented life of the Creator, there is no shred of evidence for your ridiculous claims as of things possibly creating themselves, truly these ideas you have are not based on observable scientific methods. You really have faith in your futile way of °reasoning°." 
I have already completely and already obliterated this argument - multiple times - but you've chosen to apparently merely ignore my points.

"//You've yet to demonstrate that anything, outside of human-built things, are created.//
Really? I can easily demonstrate that anything outside human built things are created because they already exist and it has been demonstrated through scientific methodology that things cant happen without a cause." 
You haven't demonstrated anything of the kind. You've merely asserted it, "supporting" it with more logical fallacies than I can shake a stick at. 
Logical fallacy: Equivocation 
You're equivocating something having a cause with something being created. I agree most everything, within the scope of our universe, has a cause - though that observation flies out the window with quantum physics. 
"I did not know something could exist without being created unless we are talking about the cause for all causes in all of creation (the universe), visible or invisible."

.. and of course, assuming that cause is equivalent to a god.
Christian:
//We both agree that puddles will form after it rains// 
Puddles are not the point or rain but the fact that water exists and you have no idea why it evaporates freezes and condenses to form the rain which form the puddles. 
Well you'll tell me something like this (according to science):
1. First, heat causes water to evaporate.
- Yes, but why do we have heat?

2. The coolness of the air causes water to condensate again.
- Yes, but where does the coolness come from?
3. Coolness comes from the absence of heat.
- Yes, but why do we have heat in the first place?
4. Well, haven't you (Nicky), seen the sun?

Yes, I have seen the sun and the rain and the puddles and so has an eight year old but you are missing the point... What is the original cause for the existence and nature of each element and the laws they are subject to, visible or invisible, where did the first DNA structure get the information from?
Me:
"The Bible is reliable and accurate:" 
Application of "True by association" (Association fallacy) #11 
Each individual claim needs to be demonstrated. The fact that Biblical Assertion #3434 is true does not demonstrate that Biblical Assertion #4839 is true. 
"Puddles are not the point or rain"

What in the world does that have to do with anything? Things can happen without there being a "point" to it. Are you presupposing that everything has a purpose? 
"but the fact that water exists and you have no idea why it evaporates freezes and condenses to form the rain which form the puddles." 
I'm barely making sense of this sentence - but even if I was, it has nothing to do with my point.
You keep creating this false dichotomy (logical fallacy) between: 
1) An object is created
2) The object created itself 
What I'm pointing out is that you're omitting a third category: 
3) Objects form based on how the universe works without being "created" at all - like puddles.
The whole idea behing abiogenesis is that life started without being "created". Indications are, it's just going to naturally happen based on how the universe works. We already have ongoing laboratory experiments that demonstrate that amino acids and RNA can spontaneously form. It's not much of a leap from that to small protein bubbles, which would form the "shell" of single-celled organisms. 
"Well you'll tell me something like this (according to science):
1. First, heat causes water to evaporate.
- Yes, but why do we have heat?" 
Let's say I have no idea. What's your point? If we have no knowledge of what "heat" is, or "where it comes from", then one cannot logically form an argument based on that lack of knowledge. If you attempted to do so, that would be the logical fallacy: Argument from Ignorance 
"2. The coolness of the air causes water to condensate again.
- Yes, but where does the coolness come from?" 
I'm cringing at your misconceptions about heat - but I won't be pedantic here. Ditto on my above point. 
"3. Coolness comes from the absence of heat.
- Yes, but why do we have heat in the first place?" 
Ditto on my above point. 
"4. Well, haven't you (Nicky), seen the sun?
Yes, I have seen the sun and the rain and the puddles and so has an eight year old but you are missing the point..." 
Okay... 
"What is the original cause for the existence and nature of each element and the laws they are subject to, visible or invisible," 
Great question! We're currently working on that. However, any assertion needs to be backed up by sufficient scientific evidence before it can be rationally accepted. 
"where did the first DNA structure get the information from?" 
I think that's a topic for abiogenesis - but again, great question!
Now... WHAT was your point that you think I'm missing? You asked a bunch of questions we don't/may not have answers to.
... and?

Are you seriously going to double down on an Argument from Ignorance? Are you TRYING to see how many logical fallacies you can pump into a single response?
 Christian:
//Now... WHAT was your point that you think I'm missing? You asked a bunch of questions we don't/may not have answers to.// 
The point is there is an answer to all these questions and you are ignorant about these matters, that's the PROBLEM: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8At1yi3Kysw&feature=player_detailpage 
Problems with Atheism 
A critique of scientific naturalism and atheism
 Me:
‎"The point is there is an answer to all these questions and you are ignorant about these matters, that's the PROBLEM:" 
Is the "answer" backed up with scientific evidence? I know you THINK you have the correct answer, but, until you provide sufficient evidence, don't expect us to believe it. 
I'm still waiting for that evidence that everything is created - that isn't a composite of various logical fallacies.
 Me:
‎[Me responding to his responding to someone else] "I can see you did not listen to MacArthur as he went through some prophecies that came to pass according to what was written in scripture way before these events took place." 
Let's assume for a moment that all the prophecies came true - that they were very specific (as opposed to vague), non-self-fulfilling prophecies, and it wasn't just a scatter-shot approach where one makes so many predictions that some of them are bound to come true by coincidence. (and most of the examples here suffer from one or more of these) 
What you've demonstrated is that someone had the capacity to predict the future. That says nothing about a god - nothing about universe-creating pixies. 
If you're asserting that God is demonstrated by this, you actually have to make that case - you have to describe the connection and then prove it. 
Furthermore, this is the 12th time you've used the "true by association" (Association Fallacy) error - where you're assuming that because one part of the Bible is demonstrated to be true that therefore the God claims are therefore true. 
You have zero capacity for critical thinking.
Me:
[Me responding to his responding to someone else‎"I have no reason to believe it is not true, the fulfillment of its prophecies are only one reason I believe the bible is true." 
You think about things exactly backwards - assume something is true until proven otherwise.

aka - when using this as an argument on others - Logical Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof

At this point, he just started ignoring me. I'm about as stubborn as he is, but only a bit more. I don't expect to be able to convince him of anything - but there are plenty of people on the sidelines who get to see an apologist's arguments torn to shreds - and that leaves an impression.

When one is directly confronted, one typically has to choose between "fight or flight" - whether to double down on one's beliefs, or abandon them. The people on the sidelines have no such reaction, typically. This discussion is really for them - not the Christian hominid.

1 comment: