Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 10 2009,09:17) | | Quote (Denial Smith @ April 10 2009,11:03) | | Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2009,09:43) | | Quote (Denial Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59) | | Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05) |
The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.
That's really pretty lame. |
I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it. |
Which does not make it any more logical, or reasonable, unfortunately. It's still an argument from incredulity, and basically worthless as a result. |
Nice snip. |
The single sentence I snipped has no bearing on whether your argument from incredulity is valid or not. But since you seem to think so, I'll include the unsnipped part here, and you can tell me how it helps your position. Or you can man up and discuss the point of my comment, which is that arguments from incredulity seem to be all you've got.
| Quote (Denial Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59) | | I feel better about the leap now that I've discovered that nobody understands it. |
|
My point is that everyone is using an argument from incredulity to some degree - even you.
The only difference is that it's often used in reverse: "We don't understand it but it must be true as there is no natural alternative".
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
