Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Logical fallacies

Logical fallacies

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Logical fallacies on Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:25 am

Admin


Admin
Logical fallacies

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2370-logical-fallacies

Creationism / ID is false, therefore, (strong) atheism is true.   This is one of the most frequent logical fallacies  of proponents of naturalism. "  That is called Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise  This illicit negative) occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Atheists must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive world view based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism. What the debater must present, is a positive case for  strong atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a naturalistic  interpretation of reality. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have a origin by its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations. 


How you can provide a better world view based on naturalism/strong atheism over a proponent of creationism / intelligent design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2408-how-you-can-provide-a-better-world-view-based-on-naturalism-strong-atheism-over-a-proponent-of-creationism-intelligent-design


If proponents of naturalism are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need of a creator/intelligent designer, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations and reasons that top theism. By that i mean positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world is self sufficient, and can have a origin by its own. They need good answers of how absolutely nothing magically can turn into something, or if they propose that the universe is eternal, and had no beginning, how we can reach now from eternity. If you add one event after the other starting now, whenever you stop, the timelapse will always be a defined timespan. You cannot reach eternity by adding one event after the other. Thats why there cannot be a past eternity, otherwise we would never reach now.

Then the naturalist has to give good reasons of how randomness finetuned the expansion of the Big Bang, the fundamental forces, and hundreds of physical parameters, and the conditions to permit life on earth, how life can emerge from non-life through unguided, lucky events, and randomness was able to create the storage device, transcription and translation machinery , invent a optimal genetic code, translation code, and incalculable amount of precise instructions to create the first irreducible complex self-replicating cell, and millions of amazingly diverse species with the ability to evolve, and explain the emergence of conscient intelligent minds from inanimated matter ( quantum mechanics supports the idea that conscience/mind predates, and permeates all physical being.



Last edited by Admin on Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:08 am; edited 4 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Re: Logical fallacies on Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:45 pm

Admin


Admin
Creationism or intelligent design is false or unproven, therefore, (strong) atheism is true. This is one of the most frequent Logical fallacies in atheism / theism debates. " That is called Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise This illicit negative) occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Both sides however must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive world view based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism or creationism/Intelligent Design. What the debater must present, is a positive case for theism/atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a theistic/atheistic interpretation of reality.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum