Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

And that's another red herring. In logical argumentation, one never forgets about fallacies, because they are so effective at destroying one's arguments.


Your argument for your alien/ILF/god sucks balls compared to that the scientists have built up over the centuries in large part based on the number of logical fallacies you insistently commit and also because you have presented zero positive evidence for any such entity. Therefore, you have done nothing so far that is remotely convincing.

Wow. You are so delusional, it seems you want to convince yourself that when more than one person points out your red herrings it must mean they are mocking each other.

     If you are curios to know you are the greatest fishmonger here:
     1. This thread is not about 'God of the Gaps'. This logical fallacy is a black hole for idiots - once they pass the event horizon they cannot stop repeating it like a broken record.
     2. This thread is not also about logical fallacies. If you are so eager to discuss them - open you own threads: "The God of the Gaps and the collapse of the Big Bang 'theory'"; or "The logical fallacies as tautological argument from omniscience".
     3. The world in not operating the way you imagine it: to wind up on the finger some fake assumptions about some 'God of the Gaps', and after that to start cherry-picking to infinity to confirm it ... incl. the case with your favorite Big Bang 'theory'.
     4. You are never answered to the questions the way you imagine the answer: that is why the discussions are for, otherwise you may feel free to write a pseudodialogue on the blog, by presenting yourself in the one role, and after that into the other.
     5. You don't answer the questions - how do you expect for you to be answered correctly? If you count the stochastic references taken from the Gaussian function of distribution as some valid answers - count again.
     What is your Specification of your favorite Gaps from your fake assumptions 'God of the Gaps'? Do you have the Specifications or not ... with a Table of Contents, if possible. If you are talking about that for over 25 pages you must have it at hand somewhere ... or just stop taking on idle mode.

You simply can't post without committing logical fallacies, can you? This is some really cheap entertainment. Red herring after red herring after ad hom, after ad ignorantiam, etc, ad infinitum.

This thread is about ID vs the naturalistic worldview. Your arguments for ID and the alien/ILF/god hypothesis suck balls compared to the arguments presented by the scientists and people who have good sense. The more you try to defend your ID crap with logical fallacies, the further you fall behind. Good for you that scores aren't kept in negative numbers, so you can hang on to your generous zero:

4:0

     Where is your specification of the Gaps?

1.0046mm x 0.002584mm.

Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to that presented by the scientists for the current standard scientific models. Remove the fallacies and provide some evidence, then you'll have a chance.

     After and when you provide evidence of the 'gaps' - what is there that 'science cannot explain and I am explaining with God'? Actually it really is a red herring - but this red herring is not mine, for you make that claim - so the burden of proving that lies on the people claiming it, and it is not me. After claiming it for 25 pages you must have at least 50 pages of explanation ... as a minimum.

Wrong. Read the thread. It's already been explained. You're trying to point to the incompleteness and controversies in science so that you can slip in your alien/ILF/god-thingy in there, because your claim violates fundamental science. You can't have your alien/ILF/god-thingy teleporting instructions for the universe from the distant past as long as basic science is true. That's not only ad ignorantiam, but also a resurrection of the defunct god-of-the-gaps approach.

Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy sucks balls compared to that provided by scientists for their current naturalistic models. Until you get rid of logical fallacies and produce some positive evidence, that won't change.

You're fighting a losing battle: this Herald guy doesn't understand basic common sense or science - and believes there's some pie in the sky omnipotent being or as they call em "god" created everything. The only question they're unable to answer correctly is who created god? LOL

A: man.

I don't expect to change his mind. They say you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. But it is a fascinating study in the extent to which someone much engage in intellectual self-deception in order to keep their fantasy alive. Having 2 + 2 explained to them and somehow insisting the answer is 5. Fascinating. Sad, but fascinating nevertheless.

I agree; it's fascinating to see people who can actually deny the evidence available to prove evolution, but are unable to prove their "pie in the sky" actually exists.

That's really not that strange, since most people believe in their god(s) and religion.

Well, it's one thing to believe in a 'normal' god, but something like alien/ILF/god-like thingies are few and far between. That they somehow teleport instructions from the distant past to the present in order to somehow give stucture or something to the universe. This is a rare breed of wingnut. Worthy of study. And ridicule, but study, at least. I'm thinking he may be a Raelian. Not sure. He won't say. Which is itself an interesting feature...

     I know what is the thread - will you enumerate the Gaps in order to discuss that or you will continue to talk on idle mode ... and do you know actually what enumerate is - to mention separately as if in counting; to name one by one; to specify, as in a list. For example: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your God-of-the-Gaps theory.

Sorry, but I don't have to obey your red herring demands. I explained it just a few posts ago.

Get rid of the logical fallacies and provide some positive evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy. Right now, you've got ****-all for an argument.

     1. The red herring with the 'God-of-the-Gaps' is yours, not mine.
     2. If you don't specify what the gaps are, to your random variable named technically 'God-of-the-Gaps' could not be assigned any truth values and it can never be verified seriously ... let alone to provide comments on that. So you either enumerate the Gaps, or stop talking about God-of-the-Gaps.
     3. You are thinking that if you hide your understanding (if you have any at all) of the gaps, you are in an infinitely competitive advantage position, but the things stay just the opposite - you will never be able to prove any 'God-of-the-Gaps' until you have the Gaps themselves specified, and written down in explicit form. If you don't want to talk about the Gaps, don't talk about that God-of-the-Gaps as well, for you are becoming a laughing stock with that.
     ... and you are the least person who is going to explain me how to get rid of logical fallacies and how to organize a discussion ... on my blog.
     If you want so much a discussion in your way, why don't you open a new thread and organize it as you like, but pls. don't explain me all the time what I am supposed to think.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already explained a dozen times. If you're incapable of comprehending it, that's on you. http://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text/c01_3-99.pdf

What I will repeat is the glaringly obvious fact that your argument for your mysterious, invisible, amazingly powerful, yet undetectable alien/ILF/god-thingy sucks balls compared to that for the scientific naturalistic model(s). And you have done nothing whatsoever to change that fact.

4:0

     ... and why do you thing that the questions should be repeated to infinity.
     I also asked you some posts ago how did you come to know that the Theory of the Black Holes and the theory of the Quantum Mechanics are reducible to the Creation ...and you skipped the question and that was it.
      ... and further, how did you come to know that the Creation, the way you are imagining it (if you have any model of representation at all) can exist ... let alone to have happened and performed by what-/whomsoever?

I'll repeat what I choose, not what you choose. And I've already told you that I have no taste for red herring.

Where's your evidence and necessary inference for your magical, invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps that's allegedly a serious challenge to the scientists' evidence and necessary reasoning? Got none? Well, then:


4:0

     This is not a red herring - this an exact answer to your nonsensical broken record. Besides it provides you a trump that you didn't even notice - for you simply don't understand the question: How did you come to know that the Creation is reducible to the theory of the Black Holes, and to photos from the QMs ... and to your God-of-the-Gaps theory?