Joined: Mar. 2006
|Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:23)|
|Here's my logic ...|
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character. It's a surprising fact because quite frankly it's WEIRD ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC: If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4) CONCLUSION: There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)
Now how is this "junk" logic?
(Copy/pasting my answer from the other thread)
Dave, let me rephrase that the way it actually is:
1) I observe people say that they have been contacted by an entity
2) I propose there is an entity that wishes to contact people
3) I conclude that there is good reason that my theory is true.
Maybe this might help you finally understand.
Oh, about the previous post, my bad: I was referring to the "testable predictions" part of your hypothesis, of course.
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."