That's actually pretty hilarious coming from the guy who doesn't understand the difference between arguments, evidence or proof. You've conflated each more than once in this thread. This puts doubt into your ability to sufficiently convince us that you're capable of arguing in a debate.
It doesn't have to be until death. It could be until "ice cream sunday" or something of the sort.
And yes, there's an important atheist holiday called "ice cream sunday."
I'm thinking we need to elect a "Grand Pope of Atheism" or something. Then at least the weird caricatures and straw men would apply and we could argue something else instead.
That doesn't refute anything he said. You're just assuming we didn't read the article. I read the whole thing and I say your reply doesn't address anything.
/e: Key words: similar principles of network dynamics.
Also stupid phone messes up my replies.
I think it's a form of pareidolia. But even so, who gets to decide whether or not it's the universe looking like a brain, or the brain looking like the universe.
But sadly, the only real implication is that things might look or feel similar to other things. Taking it beyond that involves...
Ho, you are in fact correct. I didn't realize the section continued beyond the example for even more examples. So it's not an invalid syllogism, but an unsound syllogism. Therefore my refutation is also flawed.
I should have said it's unsound rather than invalid.
His premises are untrue. Yours are not.
/E: Note: Your link shows this as an example of an invalid syllogism:
All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog.
Fido can fly.
I don't think you understand syllogism: The conclusion still must naturally follow from all the premises, even if the premises don't follow from each other. Note: Number 3 is a conclusion, not premise.
I honestly tried to do a more extensive refutation. But you're making this REALLY hard. Every single one of your "premises" is in fact a claim that doesn't follow. Therefore your conclusion is flawed.
Your argument was so poorly constructed that my refutation is also extremely simplistic...
Well, fine-tuning is a specific argument devised by specific people. I cannot refute a deity, but i can refute a specific argument made by humans. Which is what it is. And it contains no evidence.
So it depends a bit on what you mean by "fine-tuned" i guess. The way HE means it, hell yes i can...
I've never seen anyone confuse arguments, proof AND evidence all at the same time before. Your arguments aren't evidence. Your arguments aren't proof. And your arguments aren't really arguments.
Arguments aren't "testable:" They can just be defeated with logic alone. I can and HAVE refuted the...
We have a thing called methodological naturalism. And as extension, the scientific method. Note: These are NOT "Method of Atheism." They are just methods, that both you and i can use.
There is no "method" of Atheism. Atheists simply do not believe in gods. That's all. It's not even meant to be...
But you ARE confused now: I didn't say you are confused. I say if you propagate lies, other people will confuse you to be a liar.
No. Whereas i do think you're playing some sort of game.
Once more: General relativity. And once more: no one claimed that gravity just "exists" to begin with. It was used as an example of cogency of evidence. You failed at reading comprehension.
And yet you try to make fun of "atheist logic." This would be sad if it weren't so funny.