Assumptions, Part 5a

Nick continued his response to me in a separate post, so I responded (his quotes in italics):

“I also noticed that you seem to favor logical argument when it favors you…”

Not in the least. I simply asked you for your best evidence. At no point did I state that I wouldn’t use logical arguments to evaluate your evidence.

“you accuse people of false dichotomy’s, false dilemmas, etc.”

By your writings, you created a false dichotomy. You claimed there were only two options, when actually, the number of possible options could be greater than 2. There could be 10,000. Or a billion.

You wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.” Quite frankly, that’s an Argument from Ignorance.

You also wrote “My evidence is that is impossible that such a genetic code … could possibly come to exist in a universe that existed simply by itself with no rational consciousness at to the root of its being” is an Argument from Personal Incredulity.

“and yet you point blank refuse to allow me to work you through a more abstract logic argument for the existence of god.”

From your past writings, I was glad that I asked for evidence, and not “a more abstract logic argument,” because you failed to give any evidence for your god.

In fact, you wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god” and “My evidence is that is impossible that such a genetic code … could possibly come to exist in a universe that existed simply by itself with no rational consciousness at to the root of its being”

The first is an Argument from Ignorance and the second is an Argument from Personal Incredulity.

If you can’t be trusted to avoid these simple logical fallacies in giving evidence from your god, then I honestly expect the same fallacies in your “more abstract logic argument” for your god.

“You insist on empirical evidence for gods existence and then try to use abstract logic to deconstruct it, but you refuse to be walked through an abstract logic argument for the existence of god.”

Again, if your “more abstract logic argument” for your god has the same logical fallacies (and you have given me no cause to trust otherwise), then I don’t regret asking you for evidence for your god.

“You can’t have it both ways and be taken seriously.”

Actually, you failed to evidence your god. You can’t pretend to have given that evidence when you wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god” and complain that I used logic to deny your lack of evidence. You can’t fail so badly and be taken serious.
Wojtek_the_bear_037

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Assumptions, Part 5a

  1. I’m posting here beacuse I cant in the original article…Disqus seems to be deleting all my responses. I’ve had a response ready to go since yesterday. If you have any way for me to send you my response or you want me to post it here, please let me know. I would really like to continue this debate, its very interesting.

Comments are closed.