Juice, please note the difference between
invalidity and
unsoundness in a logical syllogism. All statements in a syllogism or other logical argument could be false and the syllogism or argument could still be valid, i.e. contain no logical fallacies. This is basic logic (
source. Modus Tollens is a valid logical inference
source, and none of your examples in your last post were an example of a Modus Tollens. I'm not going to argue about this any further in this thread. [I would be willing to discuss basic logic in the off-topic section of the forums, but I don't see what help I can give that 20 minutes of research on any encyclopedia or university website couldn't do.]
***
Juice,
Juice wrote:Erectores pilorum is a useful function designed by either evolution or design to warm the skin.
It doesn't warm our skin. It was useful for our non-human ancestors.
Juice wrote:I have no idea whether or not offspring bearing is in any way more beneficial for four legged creatures, or if they know a difference[...]
I don't understand. It's not about the bearing of offspring in general being helpful or not. (Of course it has evolutionary use.) The point is that pregnancy and birth is more painful for human women than four-legged creatures because the way it happens seems to be designed for four-legged creatures not for fully erect, two-legged creatures. One could easily increase the intelligence of the design of a human by having them give birth through the belly, for example. When our ancestors evolved from four-legs to be erect the way they gave birth unintelligently remained the same in many ways. It's like tailoring a shirt for a skinny guy and then giving it to a fat guy; it's unintelligent in the way that natural selection is often unintelligent. The mechanics of human childbirth was 'designed' for non-erect, four-legged creatures and then given to us because our ancestors evolved bipedalism long after evolving mammal-like childbirth. Large brains that must be less developed at birth (to fit) complicate the old quadrupedal's way of giving birth too.
Juice wrote:From what I have seen, mothers of all stripes seem to have the same success when they do it.
Really? It's obviously not the case in terms of pain and ability to safely give birth to a litter or safely give birth at all. Natural human childbirth is much more dangerous than natural animal childbirth (
source). For almost all of our history, childbirth was the leading cause of death in women. (Of course, implementation of medical advancements in the last century have provided a great relief for human women.)
***
Alun, I don't see how your points are more useful in terms of believing or disbelieving god's existence than some epistemological skeptic or nihilist claiming in any other discussion that
anything is possible, even that which violates logic rules, with some explanation why we supposedly can't know anything. Maybe we are all just stuck in The Matrix. Maybe in the real world Zeus exists and his existence has been proven. Maybe we are just a brain in a vat and everything we observe is imagined and in the real world rational rules like the law of non-contradiction don't apply and that's just an imagined quality of our world. This type of argument is a dime a dozen in epistemological discussions. I have no way to prove anything to a nihilist or anyone else claiming to be that epistemologically skeptical. Naturally, an argument about anything will fall on deaf ears when put to someone who hasn't already accepted logic as an axiom. IMO, being a selective epistemological skeptical, or choosing to bring up the
anything's possible line of discussion only at certain non-epistemological topics, is simply a red herring. In any case, you might be interested in threads like:
Can we 'know' anything?,
Why should logic be persuasive?,
Is a priori knowledge possible?,
Skeptic crisis,
Dusk of Reason. Your ideas about a hypothetical god controlling the universe, or some computer programmer in control a hypothetical Matrix we could hypothetically be stuck in, making it seem like logical rules apply that don't, or any other Truman-Show-like thought experiment can be made in those threads. And without agreed epistemological footing (i.e. an agreement to accept the usefulness of logic and empirical evidence), I think there is no point in discussing anything. In other words, coming to agreement on those discussions to which I linked precedes arguing about anything else. You can't convict a guy in court if you allow unreasonable or illogical doubt to play a role; the usefulness of empirical evidence and the absolute, unquestionable accuracy of logical laws are implicitly accepted as premises in any other discussion.
To avoid further confusion, I agree my arguments do not apply to an illogical concept of god. My arguments do not apply to a god who can violate logical laws such as the law of non-contradiction. My arguments do not apply in a reality where A = A can be false and where A ≠ A can be true and where propositions can be both true and false and where any other logical rules are thrown out the window. Whenever I make any argument about anything, take it for granted I have assumed the logical rules. Whenever I say 'god,' I actually only mean a god who is not illogical or capable of such illogicality as such.
***
Persecrates, you put a of words and phrases in your post in quotation marks. Who are you quoting?
Persecrates wrote:As the nature of God (not its existence) is unknown and unknowable
The definitive nature of the type of being I am talking about is defined in the OP.
What you define as "very unintelligent design", may still be intelligent[...]
Sure, when I look at the sky and observe that it is blue, I could be mistaken. When I study the mechanics of things and observe that something about it is utterly unintelligent I could be mistaken. When I observe a cat in front of me I could be hallucinating and not know it. By definition, an omniscient being wouldn't make much mistakes. So yes, my argument can at best make me as confident that no creator god exists as that the sky is blue and that there is a cat in my house. It depends on the accuracy of the observations used as empirical evidence in any of my premises.
I have never said I can
prove god does not exist. Note the difference between proof and mere evidence.
Persecrates wrote:Maybe evolution is part of His "design"
Maybe the supposedly amazingly talented Chef cooked the bad food with a microwave. But the fact that food was microwaved and is thus not that good is
evidence that the food was not made by an amazingly talented Chef.
Persecrates wrote:For prayers, again, it's not stated in your definition that God must answer prayers.
Indeed. If it was in the definition, I would consider the scientific evidence I presented to be proof rather than just evidence. If someone doesn't answer the door when you ring the bell, then that doesn't prove they aren't home as there is nothing in the definition of 'person in a house' that says the person must answer the door. But I believe it is evidence in both cases.