Sword,
Except that is demonstrably false. At no stage have you been able to demonstrate why anything Alan Burns has said is false.
That’s clearly untrue. Either you think logical fallacies are wrong arguments or you don’t. If you do, AB has been caught trying them countless times – ergo it’s been trivially easy to demonstrate why his arguments are wrong.
As for the outcomes of those bad arguments – “God”, “soul” etc – then you’re back to Russell’s teapot again, which you can’t demonstrate to be false either. What you
can do though is to demonstrate that the
arguments attempted for any of these conjectures are wrong and so, in epistemic terms, they’re all guesses (albeit often incoherent ones).
If you don’t think that logical fallacies are wrong though, then all bets are off – stork conjecture is as valid as god conjecture is as valid as any other conjecture that takes your fancy.
Again, 2+2=5 is demonstrably false and I've yet to see where you have demonstrated that anything Alan Burns has said is the equivalent of "2+2=God"
That’s exactly what he does. When his arguments are shown to be false, rather then rescind or change them he just complains that we can’t expect them to be sound when we don’t include a “spiritual element” or some such. That he can’t demonstrate this spiritual element in the first place is entirely lost on him.
And some do the same thing that Alan Burns is criticised for!!
Not at all. If Alan wants to disagree with my “world view” about gravity, he’s entirely welcome to jump out of a window if he wants to
How many people are expected to believe that nothing can cause something? Yes, it is dressed up elaborately with molecules - man evolution and your emergence theories, but they are all variations on a theme.
You’re not “expected to believe” anything. Either you follow the evidence where it leads or you don’t. When you don’t though so as to allow in “God” then I’m afraid you must let in any other un-evidenced conjecture too.
As for “something from nothing”, first if you posit “God” as the answer you’re just moving the problem back one step. Second though, you need to understand something of information theory to see where the currently most robust explanation lies.
Why else does the likes of Richard Dawkins talk about illusion of design if it is not to deny the obvious.
Presumably because the false impression of top down design (for which there’s no evidence at all) rather than the reality of bottom up evolution (for which there’s overwhelming evidence) is easy to make.
Why else do we have situations where it is ok for human beings to design and make things, but not any other entity?
Because you can’t demonstrate that there is “an entity”, and because there’s a perfectly sound explanation that doesn’t require one.
Are not these the products of a worldview that everyone are expected to accept without question?
No – they’re the products of a “world view” that says that facts and evidence have primacy over guessing and wishful thinking.
