Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Desert Snake]

So is your belief of a deity a fact that is taken for granted, premised on other assumptions like "pink flamingos" are rare, and "rare things prove creationism" like in your OP or is it a Holy Spirit thing that no else is going to get see and we'll just have to take your word for it?

I'm not taking your word for randomness theory.

 

[dust1n]

I'm not taking your word for randomness theory.

I'm not asking you too.

You are saying that "God exists" for you is not an assumption. Then how do you conclude "God exist?" Do you do it by reasoning from assumptions like "pink flamingos are rare" and "rare things prove creationism" like in your OP... or is it a Holy Spirit thing? If you didn't reason and or prove that God exists, then stating God exists without any actual proof would be making an assumption.

 

[Desert Snake]

First if all, you might want to re-read the first comment you quoted me on. It was a question posed to point out the assumptions made by intelligent design. ID supporters assume God, and materialists assume randomness and time is sufficient.[

I am a supporter of Id, but I also recognize that it isn't supported by reason.

Here is claim that you could back up. How is it not supported by reason.

My support of it is based on faith. But, there is no legitimate logical argument to support the jump to God being the designer.

So, no, I did not contradict myself at all. And, BTW, questions aren't claims ... They are inquiries. Don't assume so much!

 

[leibowde84]

no you didn't. You're writing fiction, and presenting it as fact.

Maybe u missed it.

Here are your claims to be clear:
1. Pink Flamingos prove creationism.
2. In your words, creationism means "God created everything as is"
3.

4. Thus, you are assuming that the complexity of life means that there must have been a designer and God has to be that designer.

 

[Desert Snake]

What on earth are you talking about?

He is making blatantly false claims about what I've said in past comments. And, he conveniently refuses to even try to back up these false claims.

That's ridiculous. I've been keeping this debate on track despite the rampant unsupported claims, spam, etc. lol

 

[leibowde84]

Here is claim that you could back up. How is it not supported by reason.

Because it is based on the assumption that the complexity of life cannot come about naturally.

 

[leibowde84]

That's ridiculous. I've been keeping this debate on track despite the rampant unsupported claims, spam, etc. lol

This comment wasn't about you. It was about Muhammad.

 

[Desert Snake]

This comment wasn't about you. It was about Muhammad.

Ok. Actually this thread is like two debates in one, it's already off topic. Aside from different arguments being used out of context. *shrugs*

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not asking you too.

You are saying that "God exists" for you is not an assumption. Then how do you conclude "God exist?" Do you do it by reasoning from assumptions like "pink flamingos are rare" and "rare things prove creationism" like in your OP... or is it a Holy Spirit thing? If you didn't reason and or prove that God exists, then stating God exists without any actual proof would be making an assumption.

The OP is presenting a contextual argument. Anything else is actually off topic to the points made in the proposal. So, the statement that I assumed such and such to reach a conclusion of Deity existing is fictional. It's an irrelevant, off topic, claim.

 

[leibowde84]

The OP is presenting a contextual argument. Anything else is actually off topic to the points made in the proposal. So, the statement that I assumed such and such to reach a conclusion of Deity existing is fictional. It's an irrelevant, off topic, claim.

The claim that god exists is inherent in the claim of creationism, is it not? If yes, then it is relevant.

 

[Desert Snake]

The claim that god exists is inherent in the claim of creationism, is it not? If yes, then it is relevant.

But it's off topic. The OP is presenting a plausibility argument, or a probability argument; the context is in that range of topicality. The reason it doesn't extend beyond that, is because, other reasons for belief in deity can be completely different subjects, other reasons for belief in deity can have different topic arguments, or premises, etc. This is why specificity is used in the first place, because otherwise the debate becomes apples and oranges hodge podge.

 

[dust1n]

The OP is presenting a contextual argument. Anything else is actually off topic to the points made in the proposal. So, the statement that I assumed such and such to reach a conclusion of Deity existing is fictional. It's an irrelevant, off topic, claim.

All I'm asking you is if you did not assume such and such to reach a conclusion of Deity existing, then how did you reach the conclusion?

 

[leibowde84]

But it's off topic. The OP is presenting a plausibility argument, or a probability argument; the context is in that range of topicality. The reason it doesn't extend beyond that, is because, other reasons for belief in deity can be completely different subjects, other reasons for belief in deity can have different topic arguments, or premises, etc. This is why specificity is used in the first place, because otherwise the debate becomes apples and oranges hodge podge.

But, to show that creationism is more probable than evolution, one must show that God, or the designer, exists in the first place. It cannot be just assumed that God is a real entity. If God is assumed to exist, then, obviously, creationism is plausible. If that assumption is taken for granted, then this should be in the Theism DIR thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

All I'm asking you is if you did not assume such and such to reach a conclusion of Deity existing, then how did you reach the conclusion?

Great, but it's off topic. This thread is already a mix of topics, I'm not going to make it more confusing.

 

[dust1n]

Great, but it's off topic. This thread is already a mix of topics, I'm not going to make it more confusing.

I can make another thread asking the question "If you did not arrive at your belief in a deity through a set of assumptions, then by what means did you arrive at the belief?" if you'd prefer.

 

[Desert Snake]

But, to show that creationism is more probable than evolution, one must show that God, or the designer, exists in the first place. It cannot be just assumed that God is a real entity. If God is assumed to exist, then, obviously, creationism is plausible. If that assumption is taken for granted, then this should be in the Theism DIR thread.

Not really. There is an assumption of no creator as well. We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option'; the other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position.

 

[leibowde84]

Great, but it's off topic. This thread is already a mix of topics, I'm not going to make it more confusing.

So, we are all responsible for supporting our claims except you, when you subjectively feel that your claim is "off topic"?

 

[dust1n]

Not really. There is an assumption of no creator as well. We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option' The other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position.

If the is the case, then pink flamingos do not prove a creator exists. Otherwise, there would no need to assume a creator.

 

[leibowde84]

Not really. There is an assumption of no creator as well. We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option'; the other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position.

This is exactly what I have been pointing out this whole time. You are assuming that, because there is no currently known alternative, your claim must be true. This is the "god of the gaps" argument.

 

[leibowde84]

Not really. There is an assumption of no creator as well. We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option'; the other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position.

If we go by your logic, all that is necessary is to assume that god doesn't exist. Then creationism would be false by definition alone.