14
   

The brief appearance of Islamic members.

 
 
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 03:28 pm
@Fatihah,
Quote:
Yet if not having something causes one to lack intelligence


no, again i clearly said that not having knowledge of something, or ignorance, is no measure of intellect.

maths and nature clearly show patterns emerging without intellectual input everywhere. paradoxically this flys against your arguement, but somehow manages to bolster intelligent design as a possibility. as failures go, yours is becoming quite epic. as i say i shall follow for giggles.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 03:36 pm
@Fatihah,
In all seriousness, and at the risk of sounding patronizing:

Do you have any interest in what people other than yourself consider logic?
I you do, we could talk about that instead of the God problem.
You might learn some things that would at least appeal to more people that hold views on the rules of logical discourse similar to mine.
Fatihah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 03:42 pm
@Berty McJock,
Once again, you have no evidence of a dead body or new born creating a repeating pattern. None. So your argument fails, as the examples above show that unintelligence cannot originate a repeating pattern. The laugh is on you.
0 Replies
 
Fatihah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 03:43 pm
@MattDavis,
I have interest in logic, and logic clearly shows that there is a God.
Fatihah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 03:46 pm
@Berty McJock,
Unintelligence cannot create a repeating pattern, as evidenced by a dead body and a new born's inability to create a repeating pattern due to the lack of intelligence. You have been shown this. Therefore, all of your alleged examples is not proof that unintelligence is the cause of patterns, but intelligence is the cause. Thus proving the existence of God.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:01 pm
@Fatihah,
I suspect our views of what constitutes a logical fallacy would differ.
Could you perhaps show in a general sense how something can be determined as logical or illogical?
Can you tell me how to determine which properties about an object (in general) that can used an analogy to derive something else.

Would you consider this a logical argument?
Golf Ball is round, if you look at all things that are round you will see that they all derived their roundness from the Golf Ball. We know this because just like pennies are round and only pennies can be shown to cast a round shadow, pennies must have derived their roundness from Golf Ball. Since pennies derived their roundness from Golf Ball it must follow that all other things that are round besides pennies and Golf Ball are then shadows of either pennies or shadows of Golf Ball. Which shows that Golf Ball must be the creator of all things round, and also all things un-round.

Please point out the logical fallacies (if any).
Fatihah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:12 pm
@MattDavis,
Sorry, but I have no interest in entertaining such a question. My only interest is defending the islamic religion.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:19 pm
@Fatihah,
You don't mount a persuasive defense within the bounds of logical reasoning.
You are free to go copy and paste somewhere else.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:20 pm
So, we are still waiting for a Muslim respondent who has the brains and courage to discuss the relative sociopathy of their religion in the modern world. It seems a great shame that a group who were once a flourishing intellectual force in the world have failed to emulate their ancestors.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:23 pm
@Berty McJock,
On the topic of more interesting debate:

Am I alone in finding this ad ambiguous?

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/17259429749729471495

Is this meant to convey that this church is open to the idea of evolution or open to the notion of homosexuality?

Or are they open to both?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:27 pm
@fresco,
Regression makes me sad.
0 Replies
 
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 04:31 pm
@MattDavis,
lol don't know...need a link Razz
0 Replies
 
Fatihah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 05:29 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
You don't mount a persuasive defense within the bounds of logical reasoning.
You are free to go copy and paste somewhere else.


To the contrary, your own failed rebuttals supports evidence to the contrary.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 07:07 pm
@Berty McJock,
Berty McJock wrote:
... there ARE some quite persuasive pointers in this direction to be found in science....the fact that the chances of the universe being so perfectly harmonised are so infinitessimely small as to be effectively impossible, is but one of them.

Actually that's not a good argument either. See the various forms of the Anthropic principle for extensive reasons why.

If you have any other arguments for Intelligent Design I would be interested in hearing them.
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2013 11:10 pm
@rosborne979,
lol i'm not getting into that arguement, i was simply trying to show that there are more persuasive arguements for intelligent design, than "corpses and babies cant create repeating patterns, so God must therefore exist."

i wasn't trying to present any as fact.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 04:12 pm
@fresco,
In this lull between intellectual martyrdoms, perhaps something to occupy you time:

I heard it proposed (sorry don't remember the source), that Islam is a young example of an Abrahamic religion.

Judiasm has had time to develop and become ever more esoteric.

Christianity has had less time but has developed in Orthodox circles to become more ecumenical.

Islam so far behind chronologically, is still in a very literalist and legalistic mind-set with regards to their religion.

Any thoughts?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 05:33 pm
@MattDavis,
Looks like it's aimed at skates.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 05:43 pm
@izzythepush,
Not familiar with "skates"?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 02:13 am
@MattDavis,
I suppose that's one of the advantages to living in America.
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 02:29 am
@izzythepush,
Yes we tend to judge people more for the gender of their sex partners, than for the species of them. Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 02:39:01