A Challenge for David (Religion)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 14, 2010, 22:43 (4882 days ago)

I've asked this on a couple of different occasions, but I always forget in the tumult to push the issue. -David, -On what grounds is your position on God different than the argument from Ignorance?-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance-In short, because of how complex the universe is, you cannot fathom that it couldn't be created by an intellect; therefore an intellect must exist. What justification is there for making this proposition--yes I know Adler reasoned similarly--but in all philosophical circles, this kind of argument is typically thrown out. Going further down on the page, we have "Argument from incredulity." How does your position differ from this kind reasoning? 
Why do you see this kind of position as cogent/sound?
When you look at the basic structure of the argument, does it make sense to use it in your claim? This is the part I have the hardest time with; that's why I want to know why you think your argument does not fall into this category of fallacy. -I can't mine Adler for his reasoning, but I do have you.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum