Nope, can't. Not sure what is wrong. As far as I can tell, I stated your position correctly. I could give you the courtesy of combing through the thread to figure out where I might have gone wrong but considering the convolution of your thoughts as written, I may find that I wasted my time only to neither be right or wrong. Just close enough for argument sake.
You did not state my position correctly, and you can't quote my position... So you can't support your claim, even though you claim to state my position correctly... "Just close enough for argument sake." Argument sake? The evidence is in this thread, and you can't find it nor quote it directly, you are found only making false statements for argument sake?
When I believe someone misstates my position, I simply reiterate it. Here's the funny thing that can happen. If it doesn't jive with their recollection then they tend to go back and look for what they thought I said. It's sometimes fun for them because they hope that they can find a contradiction. So for them it's worth it. Sometimes they are rewarded by the search. Everyone makes mistakes, changes train of thought, or isn't precise. So, I'll tell you what. Since your thoughts on totality are for all intents and purposes, convoluted to say the least, and tend to get all the more obfuscated when challenged, I leave it up to you to clarify them now and we'll let that stand for the record going forward. Fair enough? All this grandstanding and you could have in three sentences or so categorically denied whatever it is you think I misstated. I would have been reasonable and agreed if it were so. What would be the point in me continuing to allegedly misrepresent what's written for all to see? Right.
Dodge... Quote it, or stand on you false claims... ...cracking funny, making claims without evidence...then going all goofy when called on the false claims...
Yes, if it makes you happy to think I'm dodging, then by all means, consider me the artful dodger with a pointy green hat and curled toe shoes with bells on them. Will anyone care really? No. and I don't care enough to dig through pages of sophistry and convolution, comparing each paragraph to try to figure out precisely what and where I may have gone wrong since you claim I have. You won't even say what is wrong which makes the task all the more daunting. But if you really cared, you'd realize that you have an opportunity to throw pies in my face and pass along recipes for crow, with the quotes that show I've been a misquoting bastard out to maliciously misrepresent your position on totality. Even though in the end, it doesn't change the point or force of my argument. In fact, you can run around the threads saying, "oooh that PatternRec, he's going to misquote you! You've been warned! And if you ask him to prove that he didn't misquote you, he'll dodge the request!" Have at it, but make sure you have fun while doing it because it won't amount to much since no one is going to care all things considered - let alone have to suffer from my alleged dastardly misquoting deeds seeing as it is not a habit. And by all things considered, I mean considering the source of the accusation. Beunos noches, amigo.
Play your game and lose, back up your claim with a direct quote...which is in this thread...no need throw pies in your face, you are creaming on your own face with your consistent dodge... Good gravity...I thought the atheist argument was the value of evidence...not about misrepresentation and false claims.
The argument boils down on the odds. Given the fact the human scientific endeavors have barely scratched the surface of universal laws: My argument is: Scenario 1: The odds of there existing a more intelligent being imparting consciousness to a evolving ape IS HIGHER THAN Scenario 2: Than the odds of the ape evolving consciousness by a mere genetic quirk in its evolutionary process. Because If there existed such a quirk in the evolutionary process Then there would exist several more intelligent conscious species/apes But there is only one. Hence it's back to arguing the odds. Evolutionism is ALSO a matter of FAITH. You apparently have MORE FAITH in the odds of scenario 2 being more plausible than scenario 1. You have MORE FAITH that science has reached to such a advanced level, that modern science can now provide all the answers. I have LESS FAITH that modern science has evolved to a level advanced enough to provide the relevant answer. And the term Creationism should be re-defined as meaning NOT Evangelical Christianity ( or any other organized Religious belief). Because the Evangelical Christian Morons with their nonsensical manufactured ideology confuses the term Creationism by bringing the definition to the level of their nonsensical religious propaganda. My using the Evangelical Christian provided terminology confuses the core discussion: Is there/is there not, a more intelligent being that was involved in the evolution of Human consciousness. There should be a new word to provide semantic difference between the ideas. maybe you can call it: Divinism: a Higher more intelligent creature had a hand in imparting consciousness to modern Humans. Using semantics polluted by moronic religious nonsense confuses the argument. You do not have to believe in any religious dogma to assess the possibility of there existing a more intelligent creature who is/was involved in the process of human evolution. This guy probably says it better <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-ae9MarzJg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-ae9MarzJg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I am sorry to put you through that much effort. But you and I both know that does not work. For the sake of this argument who says man understands God? God might be an omniscient omnipotent string membrane.
If it were, why call it God? What's the point in calling one thing something else? Without science you would not be even talking of string membranes, and there is no explanation anywhere in science that such things would be omniscient or omnipotent. I see you're trying to mix religion with science again in the hope no doubt, for some reflected glow of credibility to fall onto religion.
An absence of faith is faith? Have you really thought that through? If the foundation of theism is lack of evidence (as defined by science) and therefore religious faith... then the foundation of atheism is surely, lack of evidence (as defined by science) so no religious faith.. To suggest no faith is a faithâ¦sounds a silly contradiction.